*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** PAUL HARRIGAN v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (AC 44424) Alvord, Alexander and Vertefeuille, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff property owner sought to recover damages from the defendant title insurance company for an alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.), based on a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) (§ 38a-815 et seq.), in connection with a title insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the present action after protracted negotiations between the parties regarding the value of the plaintiff’s claim as to a disputed property title. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in its administration of the policy and in its handling of the plaintiff’s claim. Following a trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any unfair claim settlement practices under CUIPA by the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the evidence he presented at trial established that the defendant’s unfair practices in failing to acknowledge and act with reasonable promptness upon communications with respect to his claim, in violation of the applicable provision (§ 38a-816 (6) (B)) of CUIPA, were part of a general business practice by the defendant, as required under § 38a-816 (6). Held that the trial court correctly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant with respect to the CUTPA claim, as the plaintiff, having failed to establish a general business practice of delaying communications by the defendant, failed to set forth a valid CUIPA claim, which was fatal to the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim: the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not establish the existence of a general business practice by the defendant for pur- poses of § 38a-816 (6), as the cases relied on by the plaintiff to show a general business practice were factually distinguishable and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals