Grand Sheet Metal Products Co. v. Protection Mut. Ins. Co., 160336

• Decision Date: 24 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 160336,160336
• Citation: 34 Conn.Supp. 46,375 A.2d 428
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: GRAND SHEET METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY v. PROTECTION MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Page 428

375 A.2d 428

34 Conn.Supp. 46

GRAND SHEET METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY v. PROTECTION MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 160336.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield County at Bridgeport.

Feb. 24, 1977.

Carmody & Torrance, Waterbury, and Koskoff, Koskoff, Rutkin & Bieder, Bridgeport, for the plaintiff.

Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagarty, Hartford, for the named defendant.

Bai, Pollock & Dunnigan, Bridgeport, for the defendant Wilson & Allen, Inc.

HULL, Judge.

The plaintiff, seeking recovery against its claimed fire insurer and insurance agent, pleads a cause of action against the insurer Protection Mutual Insurance Company, beyond the claimed amount of the policies in question, on the grounds of bad faith and oppressive business conduct. The portions of the complaint attacked are paragraph twelve of the first, second and third counts, paragraph thirty of the ninth count and paragraphs twenty-two through twenty-four of the tenth count.

The plaintiff is asserting a tortious breach of contract based on a tort claim separate from any claim for breach of contract. In so doing, the plaintiff is attempting to import into Connecticut law the theory, if not the exact language, of the landmark California case of Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 9 Cal.3d 566, p. 575, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, p. 486, 510 P.2d 1032, p. 1038, wherein the California Supreme Court held: "It is manifest that a common legal principle underlies all of the foregoing decisions; namely, that in every insurance contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The duty to so act is imminent in the contract whether the company is attending to the claims of third persons against the insured or the claims of the insured itself. Accordingly, when the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort." In so holding, the California court built on its previous position that the failure of an insurer to accept a reasonable settlement within the policy limits, in violation of its duty to consider in good faith the interest of the insured in settlement, would make the insurer liable for the entire judgment against the insured if over the policy limits.

The Gruenberg court summed up (p. 573, 108 Cal.Rptr. p. 485, 510 P.2d p. 1037) the application of the good-faith-settlement rule to claims of an insured against an insurer as follows: "Thus in Comunale (Comunale v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.2d 654, 328 P.2d 198) and Crisci we made it clear that '(l) iability is imposed (on the insurer) not for a bad faith breach of contract but for failure to meet the duty to accept reasonable settlements, a duty included within the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing' . . . (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., 66 Cal.2d 425, 430, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 17, 426 P.2d 173, 177). In those two cases, we considered the duty of the insurer to act in good faith and fairly in handling the claims of third persons against the insured, described as a 'duty to accept reasonable settlements'; in the case before us we consider the duty of an insurer to act in good faith and fairly in handling the claim of an insured, namely a duty not to withhold unreasonably payments due under a policy. These are merely two different aspects of the same duty. That responsibility is not the requirement mandated by the terms of the policy itself to defend, settle, or pay. It is the obligation, deemed to be imposed by the law, under which the insurer must act fairly and in good faith in discharging its contractual responsibilities. Where in so doing, it fails to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured by refusing, without proper cause, to compensate its insured for a loss covered by the policy, such conduct may give rise to a cause of action in tort for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

The question raised by the demurrer is whether Connecticut law is or ought to be in conformity with Gruenberg and the authority supporting it. Each party admits that there is no Connecticut authority either supporting or opposing such an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing between the insurer and the insured.

Clearly the obligation to accept a good-faith settlement within the policy limits is the law in Connecticut. Hoyt v. Factory Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 156, 159, 179 A. 842; Bartlett v. Travelers' Ins. Co.,117 Conn. 147, 155, 167 A. 180. The court is faced with the difficult problem of deciding whether it should knock out the type of claim raised in Gruenberg because there is no case approving such a cause of action in Connecticut or, in view of the lack of a clear prohibition against such claims in Connecticut, whether it should consider the matter in the light of developing law and sound public policy. The court will choose the latter course. In the light of this approach it is worth noting...