This article concerns the tale of a pro se plaintiff named John O'Reilly. There were other issues and a deceased co-plaintiff in an alleged class action in Mr. O'Reilly's case, but the only issues to be addressed here concern a couple of claims alleged by Mr. O'Reilly in the Connecticut Federal Court case of Navin v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO INSURANCE, INC., ASSURANT INC., AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY and HSBC BANK USA, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 3:15-cv-671 (MPS), 2016 WL 4184010 (D. Conn. August 8, 2016).
O'Reilly was allegedly the "manager" of property owned by co-plaintiff Navin. The gist of their lawsuit was the forced placement of insurance involving all of the defendants to one degree or another. Mr. O'Reilly alleged that the conduct of the defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") or the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"), as may be applicable to the respective defendants. However, Mr. O'Reilly alleged personal injuries resulting from mold that grew up separately and apart from any lender force-placed insurance practices:
O'Reilly alleges that “[w]hen a claim was put in for serious water damage, Defendant Assurant, after agreeing to compensate the claim, took the total proceeds and kicked them back” to HSBC and the Wells-Fargo Defendants. (FAC ¶ 91.) As a result, he alleges, he, his wife, and his son were exposed to hazardous mold for nearly six months, and the kitchen ceiling collapsed on him.
Whether the lender force-placed insurance practices that O'Reilly alleged might have violated either CUTPA or CUIPA in this case was beside the point here. O'Reilly's alleged injuries could not have been proximately caused by the statutory violations he alleged in this case:
The only injuries O'Reilly alleges he suffered are personal injuries caused by water damage to the Property. O'Reilly alleges that “[w]hen a claim was put in for serious water damage, Defendant Assurant, after agreeing to compensate the claim, took the total proceeds and kicked them back to HSBC-Wells Fargo Defendants through America's Servicing Company,” leaving O'Reilly and Navin without repairs or money to repair the water damage. O'Reilly seems to allege that Defendants' failure to pay for repairs exposed him to mold and caused the Property's ceiling to collapse on top of him. He seeks monetary and other relief for his injuries. Even if such personal injuries are covered under CUTPA, and even if Defendants' “deceptive acts or practices” were prohibited by CUTPA, O'Reilly has not plausibly alleged that Defendants' conduct proximately caused his injuries. O'Reilly is a stranger to all of the Defendants' acts specifically identified as violations of CUTPA and CUIPA—failing to maintain borrower's existing insurance, using “discretion to choose a forced-placed insurance provider and policy in bad faith,” selecting FPI providers “according to pre-arranged secret deals,” “[a]ssessing excessive ... premiums,” “backdating” FPI policies, and the like. (FAC ¶ 148.) Again, O'Reilly was neither a borrower nor an insured, and paid no mortgage payments or insurance premiums. To the extent the Defendants engaged in these acts, they did not proximately cause O'Reilly any harm.
Navin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 3:15-cv-671 (MPS), 2016 WL 4184010, at *8 (D. Conn. August 8, 2016) (emphasis added).
The Federal District Judge accordingly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Mr. O'Reilly's CUTPA and CUIPA claims along with all of the other claims alleged in this Federal case in Connecticut.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments