Exantus v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-1601 (JCH). |
| Citation | 582 F.Supp.2d 239 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Andrevil EXANTUS and Annette Exantus, Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant. |
Eric G. Blomberg, Berkowitz & Reinken, Stamford, CT, Noah Eisenhandler, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Joel J. Rottner, Susan L. Miller, Skelley Rottner, W. Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 63)
The plaintiffs, Andrevil and Annette Exantus ("Exantuses"), bring this action against the defendant, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Metropolitan"). The Exantuses entered into a homeowners' insurance policy with Metropolitan to cover their home in Stamford, Connecticut. Subsequently, their house was destroyed by fire and the Exantuses submitted a claim to Metropolitan for their personal property, real property, and additional living expenses. Metropolitan made various advance payments to the Exantuses to cover their costs, but ultimately refused to pay more, claiming that the Exantuses made material misrepresentations regarding their claim, which rendered the contract of insurance void. As a result, the Exantuses initiated this action against Metropolitan alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b et. seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Insurances Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 38a-815 et. seq.
Metropolitan has moved for summary judgment as to all of the Exantuses claims (Doc. No. 63). Metropolitan has also moved for Summary Judgment on its counterclaim for payments made to the Exantuses pursuant to the insurance policy. For the reasons stated below, Metropolitan's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Metropolitan issued a homeowner's insurance policy ("Policy") to the Exantuses for their home, located at 62 Wilder Road in Stamford, Connecticut. The Policy provided coverage from October 4, 2004 through October 4, 2005. Def's 56(a)(1) Stat. Exh. A. The Policy further provided that the entire contract is void if the insured intentionally conceals or makes materially false statements or engaged in fraudulent conduct related to the insurance. Id. at 22. The policy also requires the Exantuses to submit to an examination under oath in connection with any claim. Id. at 11. On August 4, 2005, a fire occurred at the Exantus' home. After the fire, the Exantuses submitted a claim to Metropolitan for their real property, additional living expenses, and personal property pursuant to the Policy.
Following the fire, the Exantuses hired a certified public adjuster, Giordano Associates, Inc., to assist the Exantuses in determining how to handle the insurance claim. Andrevil Exantus Aff. at ¶ 40. Specifically, Anthony Parise, who works with Giordano Associates, assisted with adjusting the Exantus' claim.
On September 9, 2005, Metropolitan sent the Exantuses an estimate for $313,817.56. On September 19, 2005 Metropolitan advanced a check to the Exantuses in the amount of $250,650.00. This amount represented the actual cash value of Metropolitan's estimate to rebuild the Exantus home, minus the plaintiffs deductible. Defs 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 12. On December 8, 2005, the Exantuses entered into a contract with United Cleaning and Restoration, LLC., to rebuild their home for $524,632.25. Id. at ¶ 13.
Because the two parties could not agree on the cost to rebuild the Exantuses' home, on February 1, 2006, Parise wrote a letter to Metropolitan's representative, Robert Pomerleau, asserting a formal demand of appraisal pursuant to the insurance policy. Pl's Mem. in Opp., Exh. 52; see also id. Exh. 26 at 12. The Exantuses appointed Frank Kolb to act as their appraiser for fire loss. Id., Exh. 19 at ¶ 12. Similarly, Metropolitan appointed Stuart Blackburn. Id. On June 19, 2006, the two appraisers met concerning the fire loss claim. Together, they agreed to appoint Bernard Ladden as an umpire to determine the costs of repair and/or replacement of the Wilder Road home. At this meeting, Kolb presented his appraisal in the amount of $473,950.28. This amount represented the total cost of repairs to the Wilder Road home. Blackburn appraised the home at $356,758.81.
On February 23, 2007, Ladden met with Kolb and Blackburn and stated that the full cost of repair and replacement of loss as $404,001.63. The parties dispute when this award was officially rendered and signed by Kolb. See, e.g., Pl's Mem. in Opp., Exh. 19 at ¶ 10-17; id., Exh. 27. at ¶ 10.2
Pursuant to the insurance policy, after the fire, the Exantuses submitted a claim for additional living expenses to Metropolitan. These additional living expenses included lodging immediately after the fire, lodging while their house was repaired/rebuilt and food while they were staying in hotels. Pursuant to the insurance policy, the Exantuses submitted receipts as proof of their additional living expenses. On August 11, 2005, Metropolitan issued a check to the Exantuses in the amount of $20,000 as an advanced payment for their additional living expenses. Def's 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 3; Pls' 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶ 3.
As a result of the fire, the Exantuses, along with their nine children, were required to find alternative housing. For the first three days, the Exantuses stayed with the American Red Cross at no charge. Subsequently, the Exantuses were required to stay in hotels until August 15, 2005. With respect to the hotels, the Exantuses submitted a worksheet stating all of their additional living expenses. The worksheet indicates that the Exantuses stayed at the Rodeway Inn and the Hyatt. The Exantuses had charges from Rodeway Inn on August 8, 9 and 10. See Pls' Mem. in Opp., Exh. 8. They had charges from the Hyatt for August 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Id. Thus, the Exantuses submitted receipts from two separate hotels for August 10, 2005. In all, the Exantuses incurred $6,123.86 in hotel costs. Id., Exh. 3 at ¶ 30.
While the Exantuses were staying in hotels, they ate all of their meals at restaurants. As part of their additional living expenses claim, they submitted receipts for the meals purchased from August 5, 2005, through August 16, 2005. The Exantuses submitted receipts from LaCaye Restaurant for every day that they were at hotels. These receipts were for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for all eleven members of the Exantus family. The receipts from LaCaye for each day are identical. See Def's Mem. in Supp., Exh. C-3. The breakfast charge for eleven people each day was $93.28. The lunch charge for eleven people was $116.00 each day. The dinner charge amounted to $139.92 each day for the entire family. Additionally, the Exantus' submitted receipts from various other restaurants on some of the same days.3 The total food cost during the twelve days following the fire amounted to approximately $4000. Id., Exh. 3 at ¶ 30.
On August 15, 2005, the Exantuses signed a residential lease for 51 Southfield Avenue in Stamford, Connecticut. The lease term was from August 15, 2005 through March 15, 2006, and the rent was $3,500 per month. Shortly after renting the home on Southfield Avenue, the Exantuses executed a lease for a home on Donata Lane at a cost of $2,400 per month. For a period of time, the Exantuses lived in both homes. Pls' Mem. in Opp., Exh. 2 at ¶ 68. Around November, the Exantuses began occupying only the home on Donata Lane.4 Id. The Exantus' public adjuster submitted a spreadsheet to Metropolitan representing that the Exantuses occupied the Donata home until March 2006. Id., Exh. 3 at ¶ 39. Later, Mrs. Exantus explained that this representation was in error. Id. at ¶ 44. Mrs. Exantus states that she lived in both homes until November 2005 and later lived solely in the Donata home until June 2006. Id. at ¶ 44-46. Thus, according to the Exantuses, the spreadsheet submitted to Metropolitan undervalued their additional living expenses.
On December 16, 2005, Metropolitan wrote a check to the Exantuses for $20,000 as an advanced payment for their personal property claim. On January 27, 2006, the Exantuses submitted a Sworn Statement of Proof of Loss to Metropolitan in support of their personal property claim. In this statement, the Exantuses represented that the replacement cost value of their personal property totaled $217,189.96. This document itemizes all of the contents the Exantus family lost in the fire that subsequently needed to be replaced. See Defs 56(a)(1) Stat., Exh. C-12. Each item contains a description, quantity, cost at the time of purchase,5 and replacement cost. Id. The document also states that all clothing items are "new through two years old." It further states that "any item not aged, is unknown and will range from new to five years, as per discription (sic) of item." Id. The last two pages of this document are invoices for a $4,316 bathtub and a $1,545 fiberglass entry door. Id. at 21-2. The Exantuses now represent that they submitted receipts for the tub and door in error.6 Pls' Mem. in Opp. at 20. On January 31, 2006, Metropolitan wrote the Exantuses a check in the amount of $45,707.05, as an advanced payment for their personal property claim. Defs 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 16; Pls' 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶ 16.
Because of the inconsistencies with respect to the additional living expenses (e.g., multiple restaurant receipts for the same day and duplicate hotel bills for August 10) and the inability of Metropolitan's adjuster to verify claims made on the Proof of Loss Statement (e.g., bathtub and fiberglass door), on March 2, 2006, Metropolitan requested that the Exantuses attend an examination under oath to determine the inventory of the contents claimed.7 In a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Aig Cas. Co.
...find in the nonmoving party's favor. Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.2000); Exantus v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 582 F.Supp.2d 239, 245 (D.Conn.2008). “In assessing the record, the trial court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor......
-
Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.
...insurer misconduct.”) (quoting Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co. , 229 Conn. 842, 849, 643 A.2d 1282 (1994) ); Exantus v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 582 F.Supp.2d 239, 249–50 (D.Conn.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant insurer on CUIPA/CUTPA claim because even assuming arguendo the ......
-
Traylor v. Awwa
...a private cause of action, a plaintiff may bring a CUTPA claim for an alleged violation of CUIPA. See Exantus v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 582 F.Supp.2d 239, 249 (D.Conn.2008) ( “It is possible ... to bring a CUIPA claim through the private right of action conferred by CUTPA”);......
-
Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.
...instances of insurer misconduct.")(quoting Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842, 849 (1994)); Exantus v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 582 F. Supp. 2d 239,249-50 (D. Conn. 2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant insurer on CUIPA/CUTPA claim because even assuming arguendo the def......