A recent Connecticut Superior Court ruling in Roosevelt v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company marks an important development for insurance policyholders pursuing claims of unfair practices and bad faith.
The plaintiffs, represented by Biller, Sachs & Robert, alleged that State Farm mishandled a first-party property damage claim. The insurer filed a Motion to Strike, arguing that the plaintiffs’ allegations of violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), as enforced through the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and bad faith were legally insufficient.
But Judge Robin Wilson disagreed. She denied the motion and allowed these critical allegations to move forward.
On CUIPA/CUTPA Claims
State Farm argued that the plaintiff failed to allege enough facts showing a “general business practice” of unfair settlement handling—something required under CUIPA. However, the court found that the complaint alleged multiple instances of similar misconduct, including repeated delays, low estimates, and failures to conduct fair investigations. These, the court said, were enough to support a plausible inference of a broader pattern, not just an isolated incident.
The court reaffirmed that plaintiffs could survive a Motion to Strike when their complaint alleges more than a one-off mistake, especially when those allegations suggest a pattern of unfair practices that impact others too.
On Bad Faith:
State Farm also claimed that the plaintiffs’ bad faith allegations were too vague or conclusory. Again, the court disagreed. It held that the plaintiffs had pled sufficient factual detail. Specifically, the plaintiffs’ allegations stated that State Farm knowingly undervalued the damage, misrepresented policy coverage, and failed to investigate properly to support a claim of bad faith.
The court emphasized that bad faith does not require proving a breach of contract, just that the insurer acted with “actual or constructive knowledge” that its conduct was unreasonable or unjustified. At this early stage, the court found the complaint met that standard.
This decision is a significant win for policyholders across Connecticut. It reinforces that insurance companies cannot escape scrutiny simply by labeling misconduct as isolated or procedural. If there’s a pattern of mishandling claims, courts are willing to let those allegations proceed.
Biller, Sachs & Robert, who primarily represents policyholders in first-party property claims, sees this as a major affirmation of the rights of insureds to demand fairness and accountability.
Too often, insurers try to sweep these cases aside. This ruling ensures that policyholders can make allegations and pursue them in court when they believe they have been treated unfairly.
Read the decision here: