Shaw v. Geico General Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 2016
• Docket Number: AANCV156019614S
• Citation: Shaw v. Geico General Insurance Co., AANCV156019614S (Conn. Super. Jul 07, 2016)
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Savyon Shaw et al. v. Geico General Insurance Co

Savyon Shaw et al. v. Geico General Insurance Co

No. AANCV156019614S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford, Milford

July 7, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Barry K. Stevens, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The plaintiffs in this action are Savyon Shaw and Fiona Harris.Savyon is an unemancipated minor.Fiona Harris is Savyon's mother and appears on his behalf.The defendant is GEICO General Insurance Company(GEICO).

The complaint alleges that on September 19, 2014, Harris was operating a motor vehicle on Main Street, Bridgeport Connecticut.Savyon was an occupant of this automobile.While Harris was slowing her motor vehicle to turn into a driveway located at 3170 Main Street, the right, rear of her vehicle was violently struck by another motor vehicle." As a result of being struck from behind, the plaintiff's vehicle was propelled across the left lane by the impact striking a tree in a nearby parking lot, where it came to rest."Compl., ¶ 6.The collision was caused by the negligence of the operator of the other vehicle.The other driver left the scene and this person's identity is unknown.The collision caused Savyon to suffer serious personal injuries requiring extensive medical treatment.Some of his injuries are permanent in nature.

When the accident occurred, the plaintiffs were insured by an automobile insurance policy issued by GEICO.The complaint alleges that GEICO is obligated under the uninsured motorist coverage of this policy to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages they have incurred as a result of this automobile accident, and despite demand, GEICO has refused to honor its contractual obligations.Specifically, the complaint alleges " [a]s a condition of said policy, the defendant agreed to pay compensatory damages which an 'insured' is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an 'uninsured' or 'underinsured' motor vehicle because of 'bodily injury' sustained by an 'insured' and caused by an accident."Compl., ¶ 15.Count one of the complaint seeks the recovery of economic and non-economic damages suffered by Savyon.Count two seeks the recovery of economic damages incurred by Harris for the medical care and treatment of Savyon.

Pending before the court is GEICO's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.The defendant argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to maintain this action because the conditions of the policy that must be satisfied before the institution of suit have not been met by the plaintiffs.The defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on February 25, 2016.In support of the motion, the defendant filed a memorandum of law, the affidavit of Matthew Szymanski, a claims examiner, and a copy of the insurance policy.The plaintiffs filed an objection to the motion on March 9, 2016.The defendant filed a reply memorandum on April 5, 2016.On April 11, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the motion and the objection.For the following reasons, the motion is denied and the objection is sustained.

DISCUSSION

I

" [A]motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn 338, 350, 63 A.3d 940(2013)." A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616, 626, 79 A.3d 60(2013)." A court deciding a motion to dismiss must determine not the merits of the claim or even its legal sufficiency, but rather, whether the claim is one that the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Hinde v. Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc., 147 Conn.App. 730, 740-41, 84 A.3d 895(2014)." The grounds which may be asserted in [a motion to dismiss include] lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter . . ."Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682, 687, 490 A.2d 509(1985)." [T]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction, whenever and however raised."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 265 Conn. 423, 430 n.12, 829 A.2d 801(2003).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.)MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 626.

The principles of subject matter jurisdiction are well established." Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power [of the court] to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong . . . A court has subject matter jurisdiction if it has the authority to adjudicate a particular type of legal controversy."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Crystal, 251 Conn. 748, 763, 741 A.2d 956(1999).

" It is a basic principle of law that a plaintiff must have standing for the court to have jurisdiction.Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion.One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313, 347, 780 A.2d 98(2001)." [W]hen standing is put in issue, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of the issue and not whether the controversy is otherwise justiciable, or whether, on the merits, the [party] has a legally protected interest [that may be remedied]."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208, 219, 764 A.2d 739(2001).

II

A

As explained further below, the defendant contends that the parties' insurance contract requires the plaintiffs to satisfy certain provisions of the policy before instituting suit.According to the defendant, the plaintiffs' failure to comply with these contractual conditions deprives them of standing to maintain this action, and in turn, deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.As a preliminary matter, the court disagrees with the defendant's view that the issues raised by the motion to dismiss implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

As previously stated, the question of standing concerns whether a plaintiff is a proper party to seek adjudication of the controversy.The answer to this question substantially turns on whether the plaintiff has a legally sufficient interest in the subject matter of the cause of action.SeeGanim v Smith & Wesson Corp., supra, 258 Conn. 347(" One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity some real interest in the cause of action . . .").

There can be no bona fide dispute that the plaintiffs, as the insureds, have a legally sufficient interest for them to have standing to claim that GEICO, as the insurer, has failed to comply with its obligations under the policy.Similarly, there can be no bona fide dispute that the plaintiffs are the proper parties to seek redress for this non-compliance.Indeed, the established rule is that onlya party or a beneficiary to a contract has standing to assert claims for its breach." It is well settled that one who [is] neither a party to a contract nor a contemplated beneficiary thereof cannot sue to enforce the promises of the contract . . . Under this general proposition, if the plaintiff is neither a 'party' to, nor a contemplated beneficiary of [the agreement], she lacks standing to bring her claim for breach of the agreement."(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Tomlinson v. Board of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 718, 629 A.2d 333(1993).Thus, the contractual prerequisites to instituting suit as argued by the defendant do not undermine the plaintiffs' standing.These prerequisites may condition or circumscribe the manner in which the plaintiffs' interest may be asserted, but they do not remove or extinguish the plaintiffs' legal interest either in the insurance policy itself or in their right to seek relief for its breach.The defendant's arguments to the contrary are rejected.^[1]

Although not controlling to the disposition of the defendant's motion, the court also questions whether the defendant's motion to dismiss truly implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction as compared to the court's authority to entertain the requested relief.These concepts are often obscured or used interchangeably, but they are nevertheless distinguishable.See generally, Bridgeport v. Debek210 Conn. 175, 179, 554 A.2d 728(1989)(" [J]urisdiction over the person, jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment are three separate elements of the jurisdiction of a court" [internal quotation marks omitted]).Strictly defined, subject matter jurisdiction concerns whether the court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which a particular case belongs.SeeFederal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Crystal, supra, 251 Conn. 763." A court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it."Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 185, 413 A.2d 819, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801, 100 S.Ct. 20, 62 L.Ed.2d 14(1979);accord, Demar v....