Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

1,661 chars

At the outset, we note the standard of review and
       legal principles that apply to the plaintiff’s claims. ‘‘A
       motion to strike shall be used whenever any party
       wishes to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the alle-
       gations of any complaint . . . or of any one or more
       counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can
       be granted . . . .’’ Practice Book § 10-39 (a). ‘‘Appellate
       review of a trial court’s decision to grant a motion to
       strike is plenary. . . . We take the facts to be those
       alleged in the complaint that has been stricken and we
       construe the complaint in the manner most favorable
       to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . It is fundamen-
       tal that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint
       challenged by a defendant’s motion to strike, all well-
       pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from
       the allegations are taken as admitted.’’ (Citation omit-
       ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) A.C. Con-
       sulting, LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 194
       Conn. App. 316, 325, 220 A.3d 890 (2019); see also Doe
       v. Cochran, 332 Conn. 325, 333, 210 A.3d 469 (2019) (‘‘we
       note that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation]
       need not be expressly alleged’’ (internal quotation
       marks omitted)). ‘‘Indeed, pleadings must be construed
       broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and tech-
       nically.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sepega v.
       DeLaura, 326 Conn. 788, 791, 167 A.3d 916 (2017). We
       now address the plaintiff’s claims in turn. I

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text