 |
 |
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
For example, the defendants had no discretion to invest the plaintiffs' settlement money in such a way as to produce the highest possible income stream for their benefit. If they had, the plaintiffs would have relied solely on the defendants' superior investment knowledge and expertise to make prudent choices on their behalf in order to attain the greatest value for their money. Because such a scenario would have many of the hallmarks traditionally associated with a fiduciary relationship, it would be more likely to form the basis for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty than the actual facts in the present case, where the defendants assumed only a contractual obligation to procure annuities at a certain cost and value as part of the plaintiffs' settlements. See id., 40-42 (no fiduciary obligation exists where parties contract at arm's length).
Our conclusion that the defendants did not act in a fiduciary capacity in purchasing the annuities at issue is further supported by the fact that, in settling the plaintiffs' claims, the defendants were acting on behalf of their insureds. Jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether an insurer owes a fiduciary duty to its insured; our case law is silent on this issue except for a single pronouncement in Harlach v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 221 Conn. 185, 190, 602 A.2d 1007 (1992), where we characterized the relationship between the insurer and insured as ''commercial,'' at least in the context of purchasing a policy. It thus follows that, if an insurer owes no fiduciary duty to its insured, whose interest it is safeguarding in settling a claim, a fortiori, it owes no such duty to a third party claimant. Even if we were to assume, however, that the insurer does act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to its insured, that fact precludes an inference of a fiduciary duty existing between the insurer and a third party claimant because, such a duty would interfere with the insurer's ability to act primarily for the benefit of its insured.
Finally, our conclusion regarding the nature of the relationship that existed between the plaintiffs and defendants in this case is supported by case law from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Putnam Resources v. Pateman, 958 F.2d 448 (1st Cir. 1992) (insured's representative does not owe fiduciary duty to third party plaintiff); Morta v. Korea Ins. Corp., 840 F.2d 1452 (9th Cir. 1988) (no confidential or trust relationship giving rise to duty between plaintiff and adverse party's insurer).
C. Count Three
Count three of the plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Travelers Casualty ''breached the contracts and terms'' of their respective settlements by failing to pay the plaintiffs certain agreed upon amounts. On appeal, the defendants reassert their earlier contention that ''the absence of any allegations as to how the plaintiffs were injured or damaged defeats'' the breach of contract claim. As was discussed in part I of this opinion, however, the plaintiffs have articulated a theory of harm that, if proven at trial, will entitle them to damages. We need not discuss that theory further.
D. Count Four
Count four of the plaintiffs' complaint asserted that, based on the allegations contained therein, the defendants have violated CUTPA by ''[using] and [employing] unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with the solicitation and entering into of structured settlements in connection with the sale of annuities.'' The defendants argue that this count should be stricken because: (1) no consumer relationship existed between the defendants and the plaintiffs; and (2) the claim was not pleaded with sufficient particularity. We disagree.
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.
|
|