Like many states, Connecticut insureds can assert both common law and statutory "bad faith" claims against insurers. Connecticut statutory "bad faith" claims are pursued under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6) (CUIPA), pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq. (CUTPA), as CUIPA itself does not include a private right of action (taken together, frequently referred to as a CUTPA/CUIPA claim). In order to prevail on a CUTPA/CUIPA claim, an insured must specifically plead and then prove that an insurer engaged in a prohibited act and that the prohibited act is performed by the insurer with such frequency as to amount to a "general business practice."   

To date, Connecticut state trial court and federal court decisions addressing how to plead and prove a "general business practice" have not developed a clear standard. However, recently, in Harrigan v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 214 Conn. App. 787 (Sept. 6, 2022), the Connecticut Appellate Court provided some valuable clarity as to what constitutes a "general business practice" under CUIPA. In that case, the insured asserted a CUTPA/CUIPA claim for an insurer's alleged failure, among other claimed deficits, to act with reasonable promptness in the handling of a claim under a title insurance policy. The insured alleged that the insurer's failure to promptly settle the claim and respond to communications in a timely fashion were part of its general business practice violative of CUIPA. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer on the CUTPA/CUIPA claim on the ground that the evidence presented at the bench trial did not include any evidence that the insurer acted in bad faith at any time.