Insurer Not Negligent in Causing Accident Caused by Its Insured

USDC Bends Over Backwards to Give a Pro Se Plaintiff Some Causes of Action
Post 5157

When You Represent Yourself in Litigation You Have a Fool for a Lawyer

Plaintiff Gordon Clark, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant Olga L. Orengo and her auto insurance carrier, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (“Hanover”), related to a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Orengo. Plaintiff alleged that Orengo was at fault for the accident, but Hanover has refused to accept liability.

Claims and Motions

In Gordon Clark v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-348 (SVN), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (July 22, 2025)

Plaintiff has brought eight claims against both Defendants and a ninth claim against Hanover for alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights under federal and state law. Defendants have both moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint in full for failure to state a claim. The court granted Orengo's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, while Hanover's motion to dismiss has been granted in full.

Factual Background

The incident occurred on the evening of July 22, 2023, when Plaintiff's vehicle was “T-boned” by Orengo's vehicle at a highway onramp. Plaintiff alleges that Orengo was found to be at fault by the State Police Officer and issued a written warning for failure to maintain proper lane. Following the accident, Plaintiff experienced significant physical pain and suffering, which he attributed to the collision.

The court's ruling addresses several legal claims:

Negligence:

The court dismisses the negligence claims against Hanover but finds that Plaintiff has stated claims for negligence and negligence per se against Orengo.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED):

The court dismissed the IIED claims against both Defendants, finding that the conduct alleged does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous required to sustain an IIED claim.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED):

The court dismissed the NIED claims against both Defendants, noting that the claims are duplicative of the negligence claims and failed to state a claim.

Insurance Fraud:

The court dismisses the insurance fraud claims against both Defendants, finding that Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for actions alleging fraud.

Assumption of Duty:

The court dismissed the assumption of duty claims without leave to replead, as the issue of assumption of duty is usually part of analyzing whether a duty exists to support a breach of contract or tort claim .

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing:

The court dismisses these claims, noting that Plaintiff does not allege that a contract existed between him and Hanover or Orengo.

Malice:

The court dismisses the malice claims, finding that malice is not a legally cognizable tort claim.

Violation of CUTPA:

The court dismissed the CUTPA claims against Hanover, noting that Plaintiff has neither alleged more than one act of insurance misconduct nor asserted a breach of contract claim.

CONCLUSION

The court granted Hanover's motion to dismiss in full, and granted in part and denies in part Orengo's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint by August 21, 2025, consistent with the court's ruling.

DISCUSSION

Beginning with Hanover, Plaintiff does not articulate how Hanover in any way caused the alleged injuries. Plaintiff's arguments as to negligence focus solely on the collision between Orengo and Plaintiff.  Hanover was not a party to the car accident and the amended complaint does not allege that Hanover acted negligently in any manner to cause the collision to occur.

Even if the negligence cause of action against Hanover were based on its alleged denial of liability coverage for the accident, it must still fail. Absent a direct contractual relationship between the injured party bringing the action and the insurance company of the alleged tortfeasor, or a third-party beneficiary relationship, an injured party is precluded from bringing a direct action for negligence against the insurer until judgment is obtained against the tortfeasor. It was undisputed that Plaintiff has no direct contractual relationship with Hanover.

As to Orengo, however, the Court held that Plaintiff has plausibly stated a negligence claim.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence per se effectively engrafts a particular statutory standard onto the standard of care imposed by the duty element of a negligence cause of action. To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff need not prove that the defendant failed to act as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the circumstances.

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a negligence per se claim.

ZALMA OPINION

Automobile Liability Insurance is a contract that promises to defend and, if necessary, indemnify its insured. When there is no evidence that the insurer was involved in causing the accident there can be no case against the insurer. Pro Se plaintiffs cause this kind of problem for courts by charging torts that don't exist and suing parties that had no involvement. Giving the Pro Se plaintiff the benefit of the doubt the court allowed an amended complaint so that more judicial time can be taken to deal with incompetent lawyering by a non lawyer.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.