 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Macomber v. Travelers Property and Casualty Corp.9/3/2002
the plaintiffs state: ''Under Connecticut law, violations of CUIPA are enforced through claims under [CUTPA]. Indeed, [General Statutes] § 42110g (a) of CUTPA affords a cause of action to ' ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property . . . as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b' . . . including a violation of [CUIPA].'' (Emphasis in original.) Given this statement, we read count five of the plaintiffs' complaint as an allegation that the defendants have violated CUTPA by committing a violation of CUIPA. On remand, therefore, the plaintiffs may assert a CUTPA violation based on CUIPA.
F. Counts Six and Seven
Count six of the plaintiffs' complaint sets forth a cause of action for common-law fraud and count seven for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not alleged any facts in support of these claims because they have not articulated: (1) how they were materially misled by the defendants' alleged statements regarding the cost of the annuities; and (2) how those purported misstatements caused them harm. We disagree.
As previously stated in part I of this opinion, at the beginning of the settlement process, the plaintiffs were faced, at least in theory, with a choice: take the agreed upon settlement amount in cash; or allow the defendants to use a portion of the total settlement amount to buy an annuity, which would provide the plaintiffs with a set income stream. Based upon the defendants' representations that they would procure an annuity at a certain cost and worth a certain amount, the plaintiffs agreed to accept the income stream rather than ask for cash. According to the plaintiffs' complaint, however, the defendants then spent materially less than promised on their annuities as a result of their rebating and shortchanging schemes. Even if we were to assume, as the plaintiffs contend, that the cost of an annuity is the equivalent of its value, the plaintiffs were left with annuities worth less than they bargained for.
The complaint can thus be read to allege that the defendants' misstatements regarding the cost of the annuities caused the plaintiffs harm because: (1) they induced the plaintiffs to agree to the structured settlements, under which they ultimately received an annuity with a lower value than had been promised them; and (2) had the plaintiffs known that the cost to the defendants was less than what had been represented, they either could have attempted to negotiate for a better overall settlement value or requested to receive cash rather than the income stream produced by the annuities. Because the plaintiffs have thus pleaded sufficient facts upon which to demonstrate both the manner in which they were misled by the defendants' representations regarding the cost of the annuities, as well as the resulting harm, counts six and seven should survive the defendants' motion to strike.
G. Count Eight
In count eight of their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants have engaged in a civil conspiracy by ''[acting] in concert and [aiding] and [abetting] one another in the common purpose of causing plaintiffs . . . to enter into wrongful structured settlements . . . and concealing such illicit conduct from the plaintiffs . . . .'' The defendants argue that this count should be stricken because the plaintiffs: (1) ''do not point to a single criminal or unlawful act that might constitute such aiding and abetting by the . . . defendants''; and (2) cannot allege any legally cognizable damages. We disagree.
Because we have addressed the issue of damages several times in this opinion, we turn to t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|