Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 838
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

CHRISTOPHER S. TRAVINSKI ET AL. v. GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL.
(AC 45222)
Alvord, Suarez and Pellegrino, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendant insurance
companies, G Co., S Co., L Co., and M Co., in connection with the
denial of the plaintiffs’ claim under a homeowners insurance policy.
The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.) and the
Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (§ 38a-815 et seq.), and viola-
tion of the Connecticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA) (§ 38a-271 et
seq.). The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all
counts of the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the insurance policy
did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claim and that the extracon-
tractual claims were unfounded. The trial court granted the defendants’
motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held:
1. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’
breach of contract claim: although the plaintiffs asserted that the policy
issued by G Co. and appended to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment was not the policy that was the subject of their contract claim,
the trial court properly determined that there existed no genuine issue
of material fact that the plaintiffs’ insurance policy had been issued by
G Co. and that G Co. had denied the plaintiffs’ insurance claim, as the
materials appended to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
included a copy of the policy that clearly states that it was issued by
G Co., an affidavit of a claims team manager that stated that the policy
was issued by G Co. to insure the plaintiffs’ property and that G Co.
was licensed to issue insurance policies in Connecticut, a policy renewal
letter that identified G Co. as the issuer of the policy, and a letter stating
that the claim submitted to G Co. for damages to the plaintiffs’ property
was denied; moreover, the plaintiffs did not submit evidence that created
a genuine issue of material fact that the authenticated policy that was
appended to the defendants’ motion was not the policy at issue in the
complaint, as neither their argument that the policy was issued by an
entity named Safeco Insurance nor their statements in their affidavits
that they did not interact with G Co. created a genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether G Co. issued the policy, and both the plaintiffs’
argument that the affidavit submitted by the defendants contained false
statements regarding the insurer of the policy and that they did not
receive a copy of the policy were unmeritorious because the trial court
did not find any affidavit submitted by the defendants to be false and
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 838 ,0 3
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America
the plaintiffs did not append to their opposition any evidence that they
had asked for a copy of the policy and had been denied; furthermore,
the plaintiffs failed to provide any legal authority for the proposition
that any affiliation or involvement the other defendants had with G Co.
as the underwriter of the policy could form a basis for liability under
the terms of the policy.
2. The trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of S Co., L Co.,
and M Co. with respect to plaintiffs’ CUIA claim: despite the plaintiffs’
assertion that S Co., L Co., and M Co. had conducted an unlicensed
insurance business in Connecticut in violation of CUIA under the name
of Safeco Insurance, the trial court properly determined that no genuine
issue of material fact existed that G Co., which was a licensed insurer
in Connecticut, had issued the policy to the plaintiffs and that neither
S Co., L Co. nor M Co. had issued the policy.
3. The plaintiffs’ claim that the trial court improperly permitted S Co., L
Co., and M Co. to file a motion for summary judgment without posting
a bond pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 38a-27) was without merit:
because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs’
policy had not been issued by S Co., L Co., or M Co., there was no
evidence that these entities insured the plaintiffs’ property; accordingly,
S Co., L Co., and M Co. could not have acted as the unauthorized insurers
at issue in § 38a-27 and were not required to post a bond.
Argued January 8—officially released April 16, 2024

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of
contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Windham, where the
court, J. Fischer, J., granted the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon,
from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
Affirmed.
Brian S. Mead, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., for the appellees (defen-
dants).
Opinion

PELLEGRINO, J. The plaintiffs, Christoper S. Travin-
ski and Lena L. Travinski, appeal from the summary
judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the
defendants, General Insurance Company of America,
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 838
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
pany, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., on
the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs claim that the
court improperly (1) granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as to the counts of their complaint
alleging breach of contract and a violation of the Con-
necticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA), General
Statutes § 38a-271 et seq., and (2) permitted the defen-
dants Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.,
to file a motion for summary judgment without posting a
bond pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-27. We disagree
and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, viewed in the light most favor-
able to the plaintiffs, and procedural history are relevant
to our analysis of the plaintiffs’ claims on appeal. The
plaintiffs discovered that the French doors leading to
the back porch of their home were not closing properly
and they hired a contractor who discovered that the
floor joists under the doors were rotted and moldy. The
plaintiffs filed an insurance claim under their homeown-
ers insurance policy, which was denied following an
investigation by an adjuster for the reason that the terms
of the policy did not cover loss due to rot caused by
water damage. In response to the denial of their claim,
the plaintiffs filed a four count amended complaint
alleging breach of contract; breach of the implied cove-
nant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Gen-
eral Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and the Connecticut
Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Stat-
utes § 38a-815 et seq.; and a violation of CUIA. The
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to
all counts of the complaint, arguing that the action was
time barred, that the policy did not provide coverage
for the plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and that the extracon-
tractual claims were unfounded. The plaintiffs filed an
opposition.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 838 ,0 5
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

In a memorandum of decision, the court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all
counts of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court deter-
mined that the first count of the complaint alleging
breach of contract was time barred. The court reasoned
that the suit limitation provision in the policy required
that an action be commenced within two years of the
date of the loss and that the record was clear that the
loss occurred on or before May 12, 2016, on which
date Christoper Travinski first reported the loss to his
insurer, and that the action was commenced more than
two years later on May 23, 2018.
With respect to the second count of the complaint
alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, the court reasoned, quoting Capstone
Building Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 308
Conn. 760, 798, 67 A.3d 961 (2013), that ‘‘an action for
bad faith is not actionable apart from a wrongful denial
of a benefit under the policy.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) The court stated that, because there exists
no genuine issue of material fact that (1) the damage
to the plaintiffs’ property was caused at least in part
by the seepage of water over time and (2) the policy
provided no coverage for rot caused by water damage,
the plaintiffs were not denied a contractual benefit.
The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claim that the
defendants breached the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing could not stand. The court additionally
determined that the third count of the complaint, which
alleged violations of CUTPA and CUIPA due to
improper conduct in the handling of their single insur-
ance claim, was subject to summary judgment because
the alleged misconduct in the processing of one claim
without any evidence of misconduct in the processing
of any other claim, did not amount to a general business
practice as required by CUIPA; see Lees v. Middlesex
Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842, 849, 643 A.2d 1282 (1994); and,
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 838
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

in the absence of a viable CUIPA claim, the CUTPA
claim, which was premised thereon, could not stand.
See Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,
317 Conn. 602, 624, 119 A.3d 1139 (2015).
Last, the court determined that summary judgment
was appropriate as to the fourth count of the complaint
alleging a violation of CUIA against the defendants
Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
pany, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.,
because no genuine issue of material fact existed that
those entities did not issue the applicable policy. This
appeal followed.
I
The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to
(a) the first count of the complaint alleging breach
of contract and (b) the fourth count of the complaint
alleging a violation of CUIA.1 We disagree.
We note the following relevant legal principles. Pur-
suant to Practice Book § 17-49, summary judgment shall
be rendered ‘‘if the pleadings, affidavits and any other
proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.’’ Our review of the
trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary
judgment is plenary. Francis v. Briatico, 214 Conn.
App. 244, 251, 280 A.3d 546 (2022).
A
The plaintiffs do not challenge the court’s determina-
tion that their breach of contract claim is barred by
1
To the extent that the plaintiffs also claim that the court improperly
rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the
second and third counts of the complaint, alleging breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of CUTPA and CUIPA, we
agree with the well reasoned analysis of the court as to its rendering of
summary judgment on those counts.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 838 ,0 7
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

the suit limitation provision in the policy. Rather, they
contend that the court improperly determined that no
genuine issue of material fact existed that the policy
that was the subject of the breach of contract claim
was the homeowners insurance policy, policy number
OK5568419, that was issued to the plaintiffs by General
Insurance Company of America and appended to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as exhibit A.
The plaintiffs contend that ‘‘the evidence placed before
[the trial court] by the defendants was a false sworn
statement which misrepresented several facts such as
who were the insurers. The plaintiffs never dealt with
General Insurance Company of America. All of their
dealings were with Safeco Insurance. There existed
then and now a material question of fact as to who are
the parties in the contract.’’ They further argue that the
court ‘‘did not even consider that the defendants Safeco
Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and
Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., had anything to
do with the amended complaint’’ and contend that they
had entered into an agreement with Safeco Insurance
but never received a copy of the policy.
The defendants showed an absence of any genuine
issue of material fact that General Insurance Company
of America both issued the policy, which was appended
to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as
exhibit A, and denied the plaintiffs’ insurance claim.2
2
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to meet their burden of
proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact because the
defendants appended to the motion for summary judgment evidence that
pertained only to General Insurance Company of America and failed to
present any evidence addressing the breach of contract claim against the
remaining defendants. We disagree. The defendants satisfied their burden
by showing an absence of any genuine issue of material fact that the policy
at issue was issued by General Insurance Company of America. The burden
then shifted to the plaintiffs to show the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact that justifies a trial. See, e.g., Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of
America, 310 Conn. 304, 320, 77 A.3d 726 (2013).
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 838
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

See Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn.
304, 320, 77 A.3d 726 (2013) (party moving for summary
judgment has burden of showing absence of any genu-
ine issue as to all material facts that entitle that party
to judgment as matter of law). Also appended to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment was the affi-
davit of Katie Fiondella, a claims team manager for the
Liberty Mutual Group Insurance companies. Fiondella
stated in her affidavit that the policy attached to the
motion for summary judgment as exhibit A was issued
to insure the plaintiffs’ property by General Insurance
Company of America, which is licensed to issue insur-
ance policies in Connecticut. Exhibit A is a copy of the
homeowners insurance policy, number OK5568419, that
was issued to the plaintiffs by General Insurance Com-
pany of America. Section 2 of the definitions portion
of the policy states that the terms ‘‘ ‘[w]e’, ‘us’ and ‘our’
refer to the underwriting company providing this insur-
ance as shown in your Policy Declarations.’’ The policy
renewal letter contained a document titled ‘‘Customer
Account Summary,’’ which identified General Insurance
Company of America as the issuer of the policy. The
defendants also submitted with the motion a letter stat-
ing that the claim submitted to General Insurance Com-
pany of America for potential payment under policy
OK5568419 for damages to the plaintiffs’ property was
denied. The letterhead of that document included, at
the top left in large letters, the logo for Safeco Insur-
ance, with the words ‘‘A Liberty Mutual Company’’
underneath it in smaller font; centered at the top of the
letter are the words ‘‘General Insurance Company of
America.’’
The plaintiffs did not submit evidence with their
opposition that created a genuine issue of material fact
that the authenticated policy that was appended to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment as exhibit
A was not the policy at issue in the complaint. See
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 838 ,0 9
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, supra, 310 Conn.
320 (once moving party establishes entitlement to sum-
mary judgment, burden shifts to nonmoving party to
present evidence that demonstrates existence of dis-
puted factual issue). Neither the plaintiffs’ argument
that, ‘‘to the best of their knowledge and belief, the
insurer was Safeco Insurance,’’ nor the statements in
their affidavits that were submitted in connection with
their opposition that they did not interact with General
Insurance Company of America, creates a genuine issue
of fact regarding whether General Insurance Company
of America issued the policy. The plaintiffs’ further con-
tention that an affidavit submitted by the defendants
in connection with the motion for summary judgment
contained false statements regarding the insurer of the
policy is unmeritorious because the court did not find
any affidavit submitted by the defendants to be false.
See Zbras v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, 91 Conn.
App. 289, 293, 880 A.2d 999 (‘‘[I]t is conceivable that in
some case an affidavit might be so palpably false that
the court could properly strike it from the file and
render a summary judgment. To support such a judg-
ment, however, there would have to be a finding of the
court to the effect that the affidavit was false.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 910,
886 A.2d 424 (2005). Additionally, the plaintiffs’ argu-
ment that they did not receive a copy of the policy is
also not meritorious because they did not append to
their opposition any evidence that they had asked for
a copy of the policy and were denied such request.
The court correctly stated in its decision that the
defendants submitted an authenticated copy of the pol-
icy that clearly states that it was issued by General
Insurance Company of America. Because there exists
no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs’
insurance policy was issued by General Insurance Com-
pany of America and because the plaintiffs provide no
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

10 ,0 0 Conn. App. 838
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

legal authority, and we are aware of none, for the propo-
sition that any affiliation or involvement the remaining
defendants had with General Insurance Company of
America as the underwriter of the policy can form a
basis for liability under the terms of the policy, we
conclude that the court properly rendered summary
judgment as to the breach of contract count of the
complaint.
B
The plaintiffs allege in the fourth count of the com-
plaint that the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Hold-
ing Company, Inc., conducted an unlicensed insurance
business as Safeco Insurance in the state of Connecticut
in violation of the CUIA. As we detailed in part I A
of this opinion, the court properly determined that no
genuine issue of material fact existed that the plaintiffs’
policy was issued by General Insurance Company of
America, which is a licensed insurer in Connecticut.3
The court also properly determined that no genuine
issue of material fact existed that none of the defen-
dants named in count four of the complaint issued the
policy. Therefore, we conclude that the court properly
rendered judgment in favor of Safeco Corporation, Lib-
erty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual
Holding Company, Inc., with respect to the plaintiffs’
CUIA claim.
II
The plaintiffs next claim that the court improperly
permitted the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Hold-
ing Company, Inc., to file a motion for summary judg-
ment without posting a bond pursuant to § 38a-27. We
disagree.
3
The court considered the status of General Insurance Company of
America as a licensed insurer to be judicially admitted. The plaintiffs do
not challenge this on appeal.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

0 Conn. App. 838 ,0 11
Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America

Section 38a-27 (a) provides in relevant part that,
‘‘[b]efore any unauthorized . . . insurer files or causes
to be filed any pleading in any court action . . . the
. . . insurer shall either: (1) [d]eposit with the clerk of
the court . . . cash or securities or a bond . . . or
(2) procure proper authorization to do an insurance
business in this state.’’ As we detailed in part I A of
this opinion, the court properly determined that there
existed no genuine issue of material fact that neither
Safeco Corporation, nor Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
pany, nor Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., issued
the plaintiffs’ policy. Accordingly, because there is no
evidence in the present case that these defendants
insured the plaintiffs’ property, it logically follows that
they could not have acted as the subcategory of insurers
at issue in § 38a-27, specifically, unauthorized insurers.
Accordingly, § 38a-27 cannot apply, and we conclude
that the court properly did not require those defendants
to post a bond.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.