Liberty Transp., Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | AC 41553 |
| Citation | 208 A.3d 330,189 Conn.App. 595 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LIBERTY TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY |
Stuart G. Blackburn, with whom, on the brief, was Paige B. Durno, Windsor Locks, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Stephen O. Clancy, with whom, on the brief, was Jessica A. R. Hamilton, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Liberty Transportation, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether the court properly concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff set forth the following allegations in its complaint. In August, 2011, the plaintiff owned property located at 11 High Street in Suffield, which the defendant insured for, inter alia, property damage, loss of income and fair rental value. On or about August 28, 2011, the property suffered wind and water damage during a hurricane. As a result, the plaintiff claimed to have sustained damages for lost income and lost fair rental value, and made an insurance claim to the defendant. The defendant declined to pay the plaintiff's claim. In August, 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant. Its complaint set forth claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It sought money damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The defendant filed an answer and raised several special defenses on January 8, 2016.
On September 6, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 10-30. Specifically, the defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring its claim for lost rental income for two commercial units at the property because the plaintiff had sold the property to a third party on January 10, 2012,1 and had assigned any insurance money for any damages existing at the time of the January, 2012 real estate closing.2 Specifically, it stated:
On October 6, 2017, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. It argued that the loss of rental income occurred before the formation of the real estate purchase agreement. The plaintiff further claimed it was "classically aggrieved in that it has a specific interest in the claimed insurance proceeds ... [and] suffered a loss due to the breach of contract by the [defendant] and has standing to bring this action." It also contended that it had retained an interest in the damaged units as a result of its decision to exercise a leaseback provision as set forth in the real estate purchase agreement.3
On March 27, 2018, the court, Shapiro, J. , issued a memorandum of decision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. It first addressed the defendant's argument that the plaintiff had assigned the rights to the insurance proceeds to the third party pursuant to the terms of the real estate purchase agreement. It specifically explained: (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) The court concluded that a valid assignment had occurred.
The court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's arguments that (1) it was entitled to the insurance proceeds because the damage had occurred before it entered into the real estate purchase agreement with the third party and (2) the execution of the leaseback provision in the real estate purchase agreement established its interest in the property such that it had standing. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that a separate agreement with the defendant entitled the plaintiff to any insurance moneys. Indeed, the plaintiff had failed to provide the court with a copy of this alleged separate agreement. The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that "the plaintiff lacks standing in the present case because, by virtue of the assignment, it has no legal interest in alleged insurance proceeds that are due and payable on account of damage to the [property]." This appeal followed.
We carefully have examined the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court's memorandum of decision thoroughly addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt that court's well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues. Liberty Transportation, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-13-6044771-S, ––– Conn.App. ––––, ––– A.3d ––––, 2018 WL 8139324 (March 27, 2018) (reprinted at 189 Conn. App. 600, ––– A.3d ––––). It would serve no useful purpose for this court to engage in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway , 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Bassford v. Bassford , 180 Conn. App. 331, 335, 183 A.3d 680 (2018) ; Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services , 178 Conn. App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
LIBERTY TRANSPORTATION, INC.
v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY*
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Memorandum filed March 27, 2018
Proceedings
Memorandum of decision on defendant's motion to dismiss. Motion granted.
Stuart G. Blackburn , for the plaintiff.
Stephen O. Clancy and Jessica A. R. Hamilton , for the defendant.
On January 22, 2018, in this insurance claim matter, the court heard oral argument concerning the defendant's motion to dismiss (# 123). After considering the parties' written submissions and arguments, the court issues this memorandum of decision.
The defendant, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co., contends that the plaintiff, Liberty Transportation, Inc., lacks standing to pursue this matter, since it assigned its rights to recover any insurance proceeds to a third party. The plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to payments under an insurance policy issued by the defendant concerning a commercial building. It contends that the loss which is the subject of the action predated the purchase agreement relied on by the defendant, and, in the agreement, the plaintiff retained the right to continue to use or rent the two units in the building which are the subject of the claim. Additional references to the background are set forth below.
A
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ferri v. Powell-Ferri , 326 Conn. 438, 447–48, 165 A.3d 1137 (2017).
"[B]ecause the issue of standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction, it may be a proper basis for granting a motion to dismiss." Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education , 303 Conn. 402, 413, 35 A.3d 188 (2012). "[W]hether a party has standing, based upon a given set of facts, is a question of law for the court ... and in this respect the labels placed on the allegations by the parties [are] not controlling." (Citation omitted.) Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp. , 258 Conn. 313, 348, 780 A.2d 98 (2001). "It is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Financial Consulting, LLC v. Commissioner of Ins. , 315 Conn. 196, 226, 105 A.3d 210 (2014).
The defendant contends that the plaintiff made an assignment to Capital Three Development, LLC (Capital), of the plaintiff's right to the insurance proceeds pursuant to the real estate purchase agreement (Agreement) between the plaintiff and Capital.
"An assignment is a transfer of property or some other right from one person (the assignor) to another (the assignee), which confers a complete and present right in the subject matter to the assignee." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) American First Federal, Inc. v. Gordon , 173 Conn. App. 573, 582, 164 A.3d 776, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 909, 170 A.3d 681 (2017). "An assignment is a contract between the assignor and the assignee, and is interpreted or construed according to rules of contract construction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. , 265 Conn. 210, 227, 828 A.2d 64 (2003). As such, "[t]he assignment ... remains valid and enforceable against both the assignor and the assignee." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sunset Gold Realty, LLC v. Premier...
To continue reading
Request your trial