Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc.green2 sentences2021Co., 308 Conn. 760 , 794–95, 67 A.3d 961 (2013). ‘‘[T]he existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.’’ Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000). 2021Co., 308 Conn. 760 , 794–95, 67 A.3d 961 (2013). ‘‘[T]he existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.’’ Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000). | 3 | 16 |
Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp.green2 sentences2019We note that a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can only occur when there is already a contract, i.e., an enforceable obligation, because ‘‘[t]he implied covenant is derivative, that is, it does not create or supply new contract terms but grows out of existing ones.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goldwater v. Ollie’s Garage, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX (June 5, 1995); see also Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2013) (‘‘the existence of a contract between the partie 2019We note that a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can only occur when there is already a contract, i.e., an enforceable obligation, because ‘‘[t]he implied covenant is derivative, that is, it does not create or supply new contract terms but grows out of existing ones.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goldwater v. Ollie’s Garage, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX (June 5, 1995); see also Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2013) (‘‘the existence of a contract between the partie | 1 | 3 |
Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.green2 sentences2006Connecticut courts repeatedly have held that “the existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2002), citing Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000); see also Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 90 Conn. App. 727, 733 , 881 A.2d 386 (2005); Miller v. Guimaraes, 78 Conn. App. 760, 773 , 829 A.2d 422 (2003). 2006Connecticut courts repeatedly have held that “the existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2002), citing Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000); see also Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 90 Conn. App. 727, 733 , 881 A.2d 386 (2005); Miller v. Guimaraes, 78 Conn. App. 760, 773 , 829 A.2d 422 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Feinberg v. Berglewiczgreen2 sentences2000"Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Habetz v. Condon , 224 Conn. 231 , 237 , 618 A.2d 501 (1992); see also Feinberg v. Berglewicz , 32 Conn. App. 857 , 862 , 632 A.2d 709 (1993) ("Neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation can be bad faith only if prompted by an interested or sinister motive.") 2000"Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Habetz v. Condon , 224 Conn. 231 , 237 , 618 A.2d 501 (1992); see also Feinberg v. Berglewicz , 32 Conn. App. 857 , 862 , 632 A.2d 709 (1993) ("Neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation can be bad faith only if prompted by an interested or sinister motive.") | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carford v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 94 Conn. App. 41 , 45-46, 891 A.2d 55 (2006). 2018Co. , 94 Conn. App. 41 , 45-46, 891 A.2d 55 (2006). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller v. Guimaraes
green
2 sentences2006Connecticut courts repeatedly have held that “the existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2002), citing Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000); see also Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 90 Conn. App. 727, 733 , 881 A.2d 386 (2005); Miller v. Guimaraes, 78 Conn. App. 760, 773 , 829 A.2d 422 (2003). 2006Connecticut courts repeatedly have held that “the existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 , 804 A.2d 180 (2002), citing Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000); see also Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 90 Conn. App. 727, 733 , 881 A.2d 386 (2005); Miller v. Guimaraes, 78 Conn. App. 760, 773 , 829 A.2d 422 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Verrastro v. Middlesex Insurance
green
2 sentences2000Co., 207 Conn. 179 , 190 , 540 A.2d 693 (1988). "[T]he existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing." Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789 , 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000). 2000Co., 207 Conn. 179 , 190 , 540 A.2d 693 (1988). "[T]he existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing." Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789 , 793 , 749 A.2d 1144 (2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Habetz v. Condon
green
2 sentences2000"Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Habetz v. Condon , 224 Conn. 231 , 237 , 618 A.2d 501 (1992); see also Feinberg v. Berglewicz , 32 Conn. App. 857 , 862 , 632 A.2d 709 (1993) ("Neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation can be bad faith only if prompted by an interested or sinister motive.") 2000"Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Habetz v. Condon , 224 Conn. 231 , 237 , 618 A.2d 501 (1992); see also Feinberg v. Berglewicz , 32 Conn. App. 857 , 862 , 632 A.2d 709 (1993) ("Neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation can be bad faith only if prompted by an interested or sinister motive.") | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. State
green
2 sentences2000"The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached, when the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Imperial Casualty Indemnity Co. v. ITT Hartford Insurance Group, Foundation, Inc. , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New CT Page 10936 Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 551251 (January 31, 1997, Spada, J. ), rev'd on other grounds, 246 Conn. 313 , 329 , 714 A.2d 1230 (1998). 2000"The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached, when the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Imperial Casualty Indemnity Co. v. ITT Hartford Insurance Group, Foundation, Inc. , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New CT Page 10936 Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 551251 (January 31, 1997, Spada, J. ), rev'd on other grounds, 246 Conn. 313 , 329 , 714 A.2d 1230 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.