Opinion
No. HHB CV 05-4003403-S.
November 30, 2006.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Applying the governing standards; see Doty v. Shawmut Bank, 58 Conn.App. 427, 429-31, 755 A.2d 219 (2000); the court rules as follows on the motion for summary judgment filed by third party defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) against third party plaintiff Jeanne Cornier (Cornier). The motion is denied as to count one, alleging breach of contract. As acknowledged by GEICO's counsel, GEICO maybe liable for at least some of the $2,566.83 in allegedly unpaid repair bills submitted to Cormier by plaintiff James Voisine d/b/a Jim's Auto Body. There is, therefore, a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether GEICO has complied with section III of the insurance policy, which requires GEICO to either pay the actual cash value of a loss or repair or replace the damaged property.
The second count alleges that GEICO breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In order to prevail on this count, a plaintiff must prove that "the acts by which a defendant allegedly impedes the plaintiff's right to receive the benefits that he or she reasonably expected to receive under the contract must have been taken in bad faith." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 269 Conn. 424, 433, 849 A.2d 382 (2004). "Absent allegations and evidence of a dishonest purpose or a sinister motive, a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is legally insufficient." Alexandru v. Strong, 81 Conn.App. 68, 81, 837 A.2d 875, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 906, 845 A.2d 406 (2004).
Cormier's affidavit alleges: "In early June, GEICO urged [her] to terminate the services of Jim's Auto Body and move the vehicle to one of its preferred auto body shops, Airport Road Auto Body, Inc. Representatives of GEICO pushed me to switch to Airport Road Auto Body, Inc. because this shop would fix the vehicle for less money and guarantee the work." Such allegation, if true, would amount to a practice commonly referred to as "steering," which is a violation of Connecticut law and thus an indicator of bad faith. This bad faith, if proven, might well have impeded Cormier's contractual right to receive the maximum reimbursement of the cost of repairs at Jim's Auto Body. While GEICO disputes this evidence, the court simply cannot resolve this factual dispute on summary judgment.
Section 38a-790-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides with regard to motor vehicle physical damage appraisers: "No appraiser shall request that appraisals be made in a specified repair shop or shops." See also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 38a-790-1(1) (definition of "appraiser").
GEICO's reply brief states that when GEICO presented Cormier "with the options of leaving her vehicle at Jim's Auto Body and paying for the difference herself or transferring her vehicle to another body shop, Cormier asked GEICO to recommend another body shop. GEICO employee William Baroni gave Cormier the name `Airport Road Auto Body,' but such information was conveyed solely for the purpose of comparing typical rates to those unreasonable rates quoted by James Voisine of Jim's Auto Body." GEICO fails to provide a citation to an affidavit to support this proposition. The affidavit of Baroni that GEICO does supply states the somewhat different proposition that "I spoke with Mrs. Cormier about my disagreement with Mr. Voisine concerning the reasonable cost of repairing her vehicle. Following our discussions, Mrs. Cormier opted to leave her vehicle at Jim's Auto Body and to pay the difference between my estimate and Mr. Voisine's estimate."
In reaching this decision, however, the court places no reliance on the October 22, 2004 letter of James Voisine to the state insurance department, submitted by Cormier, as the letter constitutes inadmissible hearsay against GEICO, see Conn. Code Evi. § 8-1(A), as well as the evidence submitted in Cormier's November 24, 2006 "Response to Third Party Defendant's Reply Memorandum Dated November 14, 2006," as GEICO had no opportunity to reply to this evidence. See Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558, 566 n. 9, 903 A.2d 201 (2006).
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied on both counts. It is so ordered.