Court Opinion

ID: 9960084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 12:02:02.379941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.544803
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
  The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         2                         ,0                           0 Conn. App. 838
                           Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

          CHRISTOPHER S. TRAVINSKI ET AL. v. GENERAL
            INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL.
                          (AC 45222)
                               Alvord, Suarez and Pellegrino, Js.

                                             Syllabus

         The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendant insurance
             companies, G Co., S Co., L Co., and M Co., in connection with the
             denial of the plaintiffs’ claim under a homeowners insurance policy.
             The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for breach of contract, breach
             of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of
             the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.) and the
             Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (§ 38a-815 et seq.), and viola-
             tion of the Connecticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA) (§ 38a-271 et
             seq.). The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all
             counts of the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the insurance policy
             did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claim and that the extracon-
             tractual claims were unfounded. The trial court granted the defendants’
             motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held:
         1. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’
             breach of contract claim: although the plaintiffs asserted that the policy
             issued by G Co. and appended to the defendants’ motion for summary
             judgment was not the policy that was the subject of their contract claim,
             the trial court properly determined that there existed no genuine issue
             of material fact that the plaintiffs’ insurance policy had been issued by
             G Co. and that G Co. had denied the plaintiffs’ insurance claim, as the
             materials appended to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
             included a copy of the policy that clearly states that it was issued by
             G Co., an affidavit of a claims team manager that stated that the policy
             was issued by G Co. to insure the plaintiffs’ property and that G Co.
             was licensed to issue insurance policies in Connecticut, a policy renewal
             letter that identified G Co. as the issuer of the policy, and a letter stating
             that the claim submitted to G Co. for damages to the plaintiffs’ property
             was denied; moreover, the plaintiffs did not submit evidence that created
             a genuine issue of material fact that the authenticated policy that was
             appended to the defendants’ motion was not the policy at issue in the
             complaint, as neither their argument that the policy was issued by an
             entity named Safeco Insurance nor their statements in their affidavits
             that they did not interact with G Co. created a genuine issue of material
             fact regarding whether G Co. issued the policy, and both the plaintiffs’
             argument that the affidavit submitted by the defendants contained false
             statements regarding the insurer of the policy and that they did not
             receive a copy of the policy were unmeritorious because the trial court
             did not find any affidavit submitted by the defendants to be false and
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 838                                 ,0                          3
                        Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America
           the plaintiffs did not append to their opposition any evidence that they
           had asked for a copy of the policy and had been denied; furthermore,
           the plaintiffs failed to provide any legal authority for the proposition
           that any affiliation or involvement the other defendants had with G Co.
           as the underwriter of the policy could form a basis for liability under
           the terms of the policy.
       2. The trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of S Co., L Co.,
           and M Co. with respect to plaintiffs’ CUIA claim: despite the plaintiffs’
           assertion that S Co., L Co., and M Co. had conducted an unlicensed
           insurance business in Connecticut in violation of CUIA under the name
           of Safeco Insurance, the trial court properly determined that no genuine
           issue of material fact existed that G Co., which was a licensed insurer
           in Connecticut, had issued the policy to the plaintiffs and that neither
           S Co., L Co. nor M Co. had issued the policy.
       3. The plaintiffs’ claim that the trial court improperly permitted S Co., L
           Co., and M Co. to file a motion for summary judgment without posting
           a bond pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 38a-27) was without merit:
           because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs’
           policy had not been issued by S Co., L Co., or M Co., there was no
           evidence that these entities insured the plaintiffs’ property; accordingly,
           S Co., L Co., and M Co. could not have acted as the unauthorized insurers
           at issue in § 38a-27 and were not required to post a bond.
                  Argued January 8—officially released April 16, 2024

                                    Procedural History

          Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of
       contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
       Court in the judicial district of Windham, where the
       court, J. Fischer, J., granted the defendants’ motion
       for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon,
       from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
       Affirmed.
          Brian S. Mead, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
         Philip T. Newbury, Jr., for the appellees (defen-
       dants).
                                         Opinion

         PELLEGRINO, J. The plaintiffs, Christoper S. Travin-
       ski and Lena L. Travinski, appeal from the summary
       judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the
       defendants, General Insurance Company of America,
Page 2                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          0, 0

         4                   ,0                        0 Conn. App. 838
                      Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

         Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
         pany, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., on
         the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs claim that the
         court improperly (1) granted the defendants’ motion for
         summary judgment as to the counts of their complaint
         alleging breach of contract and a violation of the Con-
         necticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA), General
         Statutes § 38a-271 et seq., and (2) permitted the defen-
         dants Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance
         Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.,
         to file a motion for summary judgment without posting a
         bond pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-27. We disagree
         and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
            The following facts, viewed in the light most favor-
         able to the plaintiffs, and procedural history are relevant
         to our analysis of the plaintiffs’ claims on appeal. The
         plaintiffs discovered that the French doors leading to
         the back porch of their home were not closing properly
         and they hired a contractor who discovered that the
         floor joists under the doors were rotted and moldy. The
         plaintiffs filed an insurance claim under their homeown-
         ers insurance policy, which was denied following an
         investigation by an adjuster for the reason that the terms
         of the policy did not cover loss due to rot caused by
         water damage. In response to the denial of their claim,
         the plaintiffs filed a four count amended complaint
         alleging breach of contract; breach of the implied cove-
         nant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the
         Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Gen-
         eral Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and the Connecticut
         Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Stat-
         utes § 38a-815 et seq.; and a violation of CUIA. The
         defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to
         all counts of the complaint, arguing that the action was
         time barred, that the policy did not provide coverage
         for the plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and that the extracon-
         tractual claims were unfounded. The plaintiffs filed an
         opposition.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 838                          ,0            5
                    Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

         In a memorandum of decision, the court granted the
       defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all
       counts of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court deter-
       mined that the first count of the complaint alleging
       breach of contract was time barred. The court reasoned
       that the suit limitation provision in the policy required
       that an action be commenced within two years of the
       date of the loss and that the record was clear that the
       loss occurred on or before May 12, 2016, on which
       date Christoper Travinski first reported the loss to his
       insurer, and that the action was commenced more than
       two years later on May 23, 2018.
          With respect to the second count of the complaint
       alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith
       and fair dealing, the court reasoned, quoting Capstone
       Building Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 308
       Conn. 760, 798, 67 A.3d 961 (2013), that ‘‘an action for
       bad faith is not actionable apart from a wrongful denial
       of a benefit under the policy.’’ (Internal quotation marks
       omitted.) The court stated that, because there exists
       no genuine issue of material fact that (1) the damage
       to the plaintiffs’ property was caused at least in part
       by the seepage of water over time and (2) the policy
       provided no coverage for rot caused by water damage,
       the plaintiffs were not denied a contractual benefit.
       The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claim that the
       defendants breached the covenant of good faith and
       fair dealing could not stand. The court additionally
       determined that the third count of the complaint, which
       alleged violations of CUTPA and CUIPA due to
       improper conduct in the handling of their single insur-
       ance claim, was subject to summary judgment because
       the alleged misconduct in the processing of one claim
       without any evidence of misconduct in the processing
       of any other claim, did not amount to a general business
       practice as required by CUIPA; see Lees v. Middlesex
       Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842, 849, 643 A.2d 1282 (1994); and,
Page 4                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  0, 0

         6                       ,0                        0 Conn. App. 838
                         Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

         in the absence of a viable CUIPA claim, the CUTPA
         claim, which was premised thereon, could not stand.
         See Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,
         317 Conn. 602, 624, 119 A.3d 1139 (2015).
            Last, the court determined that summary judgment
         was appropriate as to the fourth count of the complaint
         alleging a violation of CUIA against the defendants
         Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
         pany, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.,
         because no genuine issue of material fact existed that
         those entities did not issue the applicable policy. This
         appeal followed.
                                             I
            The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted
         the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to
         (a) the first count of the complaint alleging breach
         of contract and (b) the fourth count of the complaint
         alleging a violation of CUIA.1 We disagree.
            We note the following relevant legal principles. Pur-
         suant to Practice Book § 17-49, summary judgment shall
         be rendered ‘‘if the pleadings, affidavits and any other
         proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as
         to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
         to judgment as a matter of law.’’ Our review of the
         trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary
         judgment is plenary. Francis v. Briatico, 214 Conn.
         App. 244, 251, 280 A.3d 546 (2022).
                                            A
            The plaintiffs do not challenge the court’s determina-
         tion that their breach of contract claim is barred by
           1
             To the extent that the plaintiffs also claim that the court improperly
         rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the
         second and third counts of the complaint, alleging breach of the covenant
         of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of CUTPA and CUIPA, we
         agree with the well reasoned analysis of the court as to its rendering of
         summary judgment on those counts.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 838                                ,0                          7
                        Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

       the suit limitation provision in the policy. Rather, they
       contend that the court improperly determined that no
       genuine issue of material fact existed that the policy
       that was the subject of the breach of contract claim
       was the homeowners insurance policy, policy number
       OK5568419, that was issued to the plaintiffs by General
       Insurance Company of America and appended to the
       defendants’ motion for summary judgment as exhibit A.
       The plaintiffs contend that ‘‘the evidence placed before
       [the trial court] by the defendants was a false sworn
       statement which misrepresented several facts such as
       who were the insurers. The plaintiffs never dealt with
       General Insurance Company of America. All of their
       dealings were with Safeco Insurance. There existed
       then and now a material question of fact as to who are
       the parties in the contract.’’ They further argue that the
       court ‘‘did not even consider that the defendants Safeco
       Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and
       Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., had anything to
       do with the amended complaint’’ and contend that they
       had entered into an agreement with Safeco Insurance
       but never received a copy of the policy.
          The defendants showed an absence of any genuine
       issue of material fact that General Insurance Company
       of America both issued the policy, which was appended
       to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as
       exhibit A, and denied the plaintiffs’ insurance claim.2
          2
            The plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to meet their burden of
       proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact because the
       defendants appended to the motion for summary judgment evidence that
       pertained only to General Insurance Company of America and failed to
       present any evidence addressing the breach of contract claim against the
       remaining defendants. We disagree. The defendants satisfied their burden
       by showing an absence of any genuine issue of material fact that the policy
       at issue was issued by General Insurance Company of America. The burden
       then shifted to the plaintiffs to show the existence of a genuine issue of
       material fact that justifies a trial. See, e.g., Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of
       America, 310 Conn. 304, 320, 77 A.3d 726 (2013).
Page 6                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

         8                   ,0                        0 Conn. App. 838
                      Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

         See Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn.
         304, 320, 77 A.3d 726 (2013) (party moving for summary
         judgment has burden of showing absence of any genu-
         ine issue as to all material facts that entitle that party
         to judgment as matter of law). Also appended to the
         defendants’ motion for summary judgment was the affi-
         davit of Katie Fiondella, a claims team manager for the
         Liberty Mutual Group Insurance companies. Fiondella
         stated in her affidavit that the policy attached to the
         motion for summary judgment as exhibit A was issued
         to insure the plaintiffs’ property by General Insurance
         Company of America, which is licensed to issue insur-
         ance policies in Connecticut. Exhibit A is a copy of the
         homeowners insurance policy, number OK5568419, that
         was issued to the plaintiffs by General Insurance Com-
         pany of America. Section 2 of the definitions portion
         of the policy states that the terms ‘‘ ‘[w]e’, ‘us’ and ‘our’
         refer to the underwriting company providing this insur-
         ance as shown in your Policy Declarations.’’ The policy
         renewal letter contained a document titled ‘‘Customer
         Account Summary,’’ which identified General Insurance
         Company of America as the issuer of the policy. The
         defendants also submitted with the motion a letter stat-
         ing that the claim submitted to General Insurance Com-
         pany of America for potential payment under policy
         OK5568419 for damages to the plaintiffs’ property was
         denied. The letterhead of that document included, at
         the top left in large letters, the logo for Safeco Insur-
         ance, with the words ‘‘A Liberty Mutual Company’’
         underneath it in smaller font; centered at the top of the
         letter are the words ‘‘General Insurance Company of
         America.’’
           The plaintiffs did not submit evidence with their
         opposition that created a genuine issue of material fact
         that the authenticated policy that was appended to the
         defendants’ motion for summary judgment as exhibit
         A was not the policy at issue in the complaint. See
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 838                          ,0               9
                    Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

       Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, supra, 310 Conn.
       320 (once moving party establishes entitlement to sum-
       mary judgment, burden shifts to nonmoving party to
       present evidence that demonstrates existence of dis-
       puted factual issue). Neither the plaintiffs’ argument
       that, ‘‘to the best of their knowledge and belief, the
       insurer was Safeco Insurance,’’ nor the statements in
       their affidavits that were submitted in connection with
       their opposition that they did not interact with General
       Insurance Company of America, creates a genuine issue
       of fact regarding whether General Insurance Company
       of America issued the policy. The plaintiffs’ further con-
       tention that an affidavit submitted by the defendants
       in connection with the motion for summary judgment
       contained false statements regarding the insurer of the
       policy is unmeritorious because the court did not find
       any affidavit submitted by the defendants to be false.
       See Zbras v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, 91 Conn.
       App. 289, 293, 880 A.2d 999 (‘‘[I]t is conceivable that in
       some case an affidavit might be so palpably false that
       the court could properly strike it from the file and
       render a summary judgment. To support such a judg-
       ment, however, there would have to be a finding of the
       court to the effect that the affidavit was false.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 910,
       886 A.2d 424 (2005). Additionally, the plaintiffs’ argu-
       ment that they did not receive a copy of the policy is
       also not meritorious because they did not append to
       their opposition any evidence that they had asked for
       a copy of the policy and were denied such request.
         The court correctly stated in its decision that the
       defendants submitted an authenticated copy of the pol-
       icy that clearly states that it was issued by General
       Insurance Company of America. Because there exists
       no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs’
       insurance policy was issued by General Insurance Com-
       pany of America and because the plaintiffs provide no
Page 8                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  0, 0

         10                       ,0                       0 Conn. App. 838
                         Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

         legal authority, and we are aware of none, for the propo-
         sition that any affiliation or involvement the remaining
         defendants had with General Insurance Company of
         America as the underwriter of the policy can form a
         basis for liability under the terms of the policy, we
         conclude that the court properly rendered summary
         judgment as to the breach of contract count of the
         complaint.
                                            B
            The plaintiffs allege in the fourth count of the com-
         plaint that the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty
         Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Hold-
         ing Company, Inc., conducted an unlicensed insurance
         business as Safeco Insurance in the state of Connecticut
         in violation of the CUIA. As we detailed in part I A
         of this opinion, the court properly determined that no
         genuine issue of material fact existed that the plaintiffs’
         policy was issued by General Insurance Company of
         America, which is a licensed insurer in Connecticut.3
         The court also properly determined that no genuine
         issue of material fact existed that none of the defen-
         dants named in count four of the complaint issued the
         policy. Therefore, we conclude that the court properly
         rendered judgment in favor of Safeco Corporation, Lib-
         erty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual
         Holding Company, Inc., with respect to the plaintiffs’
         CUIA claim.
                                            II
           The plaintiffs next claim that the court improperly
         permitted the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty
         Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Hold-
         ing Company, Inc., to file a motion for summary judg-
         ment without posting a bond pursuant to § 38a-27. We
         disagree.
           3
             The court considered the status of General Insurance Company of
         America as a licensed insurer to be judicially admitted. The plaintiffs do
         not challenge this on appeal.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 9

       0 Conn. App. 838                         ,0             11
                    Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

          Section 38a-27 (a) provides in relevant part that,
       ‘‘[b]efore any unauthorized . . . insurer files or causes
       to be filed any pleading in any court action . . . the
       . . . insurer shall either: (1) [d]eposit with the clerk of
       the court . . . cash or securities or a bond . . . or
       (2) procure proper authorization to do an insurance
       business in this state.’’ As we detailed in part I A of
       this opinion, the court properly determined that there
       existed no genuine issue of material fact that neither
       Safeco Corporation, nor Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
       pany, nor Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., issued
       the plaintiffs’ policy. Accordingly, because there is no
       evidence in the present case that these defendants
       insured the plaintiffs’ property, it logically follows that
       they could not have acted as the subcategory of insurers
       at issue in § 38a-27, specifically, unauthorized insurers.
       Accordingly, § 38a-27 cannot apply, and we conclude
       that the court properly did not require those defendants
       to post a bond.
         The judgment is affirmed.
         In this opinion the other judges concurred.