Thomas v. Vigilant Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Perry v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.

    3:22-cv-910 (KAD) (D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2024)

    Thomas v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 594 F.Supp.3d 499, 514-15 (2022).

  2. Five Star Cars LLC v. Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co.

    3:22-CV-00915-MPS (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2024)

    James Gorman therefore cannot support Five Star's claim that GAMIC engaged in a general business practice of unfair settlement practices in violation of CUTPA/CUIPA. See Thomas v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 594 F.Supp.3d 499, 513 (D. Conn. 2022) (dismissing CUTPA/CUIPA claim where the court found that the numerous prior cases cited by plaintiff “bear little similarity to the one at bar”). Compare Moura v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., No. 3:18-CV-422.

  3. Edwards v. Travelers Cas. Co.

    3:23cv00268(MPS) (D. Conn. Dec. 4, 2023)

    , Connecticut courts have oft held that these causes of action are duplicative where they are based on the same underlying insurance contract.” Thomas v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 594 F.Supp.3d 499, 506 (D. Conn. 2022); see Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pasiak, 2011 WL 6413817, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2011) (granting motion to strike defendants' tortious bad faith counterclaim because it was duplicative of the defendants' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim)

  4. Harrigan v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.

    214 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Although those additional instances of insurance misconduct all involve Fidelity National Title Insurance Company or its affiliates as a party and claims pursuant to title policies issued by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, they have little, if any, evidentiary value with respect to the issue of a general business practice by the defendant in the present case, as the claims involved therein are not sufficiently similar to the one in the present case. See Thomas v. Vigilant Ins. Co ., Docket No. 3:21-CV-00211 (KAD), 2022 WL 844601, *8 (D. Conn. March 22, 2022) ("[p]rior instances of insurance misconduct offered to demonstrate a general business practice must be sufficiently similar to the allegations at issue to support such a conclusion" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Davis II is an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Davis I .