Servpro of Stamford v. Allstate Ins., No. Cv91 0114006 S (Oct. 18, 1991)
Opinion of the Court
Allstate has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying papers asserting that as soon as Allstate discovered that its insured had made arrangements with the plaintiff to perform the required cleaning services, its representative immediately called Crystal Home Cleaners ("Crystal") to cancel the inspection that Allstate had previously requested. Allstate asserts that after receiving the notice of cancellation Crystal Cleaners inspected the property and eventually performed the cleaning CT Page 8652 services. Accordingly, Allstate claims that it did not tortiously interfere with the plaintiff's contractual rights and that no unfair or deceptive acts occurred.
The plaintiff has filed opposing papers including an affidavit from the Allstate insured which states, inter alia, that she was advised by Allstate representatives that Allstate uses Crystal exclusively and that she only allowed Crystal to perform the work because she believed that no other cleaning service would be paid by Allstate.
In order to establish its request to a summary judgment the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and be such as to entitle the plaintiff to a directed verdict. Nolan v. Borokowski [Borkowski],
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
RUSH, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.