McCulloch v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that CUTP/CUIPA claim failed where plaintiff showed only that defendant insurance company “wrongfully terminated her disability benefits” and alleged no corresponding general business practice
• stating “alleged improper conduct in the handling of a single insurance claim, without any evidence of misconduct in processing any other claim, does not rise to the level of a general business practice”
• “Allegations of a mere coverage dispute or negligent investigation by an insurer will not state a claim for bad faith.”
• “It is axiomatic that an insurer has the right to investigate the validity of a claim, otherwise there would be no check against fraud.”
• “a plaintiff cannot recover for bad faith if the insurer denies a claim that is ‘fairly debatable,’ i.e., if the insurer had some arguably justifiable reason for refusing to pay or terminating the claim.”
• “It is axiomatic that an insurer has the right to investigate the validity of a claim[;] otherwise, there would be no check against fraud.” (quoting Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Lindenman, 911 F. Supp. 619, 629 (E.D.N.Y. 1995))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).