Plaintiff Representing Himself Proves His Client a Fool

Pro Se Plaintiff Exceeds Logic & Sense
Post number 5281

In Gordon Clark v. Hanover Insurance Group, et al., No. 3:24-CV-348 (SVN), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (January 30, 2026) the USDC dealt with a series of claims brought by a person representing himself resulting from an auto accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gordon Clark, proceeding pro se, sued Olga L. Orengo and her insurer, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., following a motor vehicle collision in Windsor, Connecticut on July 22, 2023. Clark alleged that, despite Orengo being at fault, Hanover and Orengo refused to accept liability and instead filed an insurance claim asserting Clark was responsible for the accident.

LEGAL ISSUES

Clark’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) included claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and insurance fraud against both Orengo and Hanover, along with a negligence per se claim against Orengo. Hanover moved to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim. Orengo moved to dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress and insurance fraud claims.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

The court granted both motions to dismiss, finding that Clark’s allegations did not sufficiently state claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress or insurance fraud against either defendant, or for any claims against Hanover. The action proceeds only against Orengo and only as to the negligence and negligence per se claims. The court also directed Orengo to provide information about her domicile to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists.

The factual and procedural analysis showed that, while Clark alleged Orengo was at fault and Hanover acted in bad faith, the legal threshold for the dismissed claims was not met at the pleading stage.

Count One: Negligence

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleges common law negligence as against both Defendants.

Count Two: Negligence Per Se

Plaintiff also alleges a negligence per se claim as against Defendant Orengo only. Because Defendant Orengo has not moved to dismiss this claim either, it too may proceed against her.

Count Three: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Next, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) against both Defendants.

Plaintiff has suffered “serious physical, mental, and emotional distress, pain, and suffering of the type that a reasonable person would expect to occur.”

To state a claim for NIED, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's distress was foreseeable; (3) the emotional distress was severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm; and (4) the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress.

First, Plaintiff's “collision theory” of NIED liability against Defendant Orengo is duplicative of his negligence claim against her and must be dismissed on that ground.

Plaintiff's “insurance claim” theory fares no better. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants filed a “fraudulent claim” against him with his auto insurance company, Amica, falsely claiming that he was at fault for the accident on July 22, 2023.

Neither Defendant Orengo nor Hanover owes any duty to Plaintiff based on the alleged false insurance claim because an insurer or, by extension, the insured, has no duty to settle an insurance claim with a third-party claimant fairly.

Count Four: Insurance Fraud

The Court next dismisses Plaintiff's insurance fraud claim against both Defendants. The Court concluded that the insurance fraud claim against Defendants Hanover and Orengo must be dismissed. First, Plaintiff's citation to two entire chapters of the United States Code is not a sufficiently particularized statutory basis to support his claim.

There is no evidence that Hanover ever provided a false statement to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff was induced to act in reliance on any such false statement. Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to support a claim for common law fraud against Defendants Hanover and Orengo under Connecticut law. Count Four is therefore dismissed against both Defendants.

Defendant Hanover's motion to dismiss all claims against it was granted, without leave to amend.  Defendant Orengo's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four is likewise GRANTED, without leave to amend.

ZALMA OPINION

Another case establishing the old saw that he who represents himself in litigation has a fool for a client. This pro se plaintiff took a simple auto accident claim into a mix of negligence, fraud and breach of contract, none of which - except the negligence claim - was a waste of the the time of the litigants and the court. If it had been filed by a lawyer the lawyer and the client would have been sanctioned by the court.