A court may strike a complaint for underinsured-motorist coverage that does not allege that all available insurance coverage has been exhausted. Allegedly, the plaintiff, Carrie Manka, was injured in a motor-vehicle accident with a tortfeasor, who was working within the scope of the tortfeasor's employment. The plaintiff sued her own insurance company, Allstate, for underinsured-motorist benefits, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §38a-336. Allstate moved to strike and argued that Manka did not adequately alleged that she exhausted the insurance of the tortfeasor's employer. "If any facts provable under the express and implied allegations in the plaintiff's complaint support a cause of action .  . . the complaint is not vulnerable to a motion to strike," pursuant to Bouchard v. People's Bank, a 1991 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Superior Court found that the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the subject accident took place in the course of the tortfeasor's employment, that the tortfeasor's motor-vehicle insurance policy has been exhausted and that the defendant insurance company is responsible for insurance coverage. Construing the complaint broadly and realistically, wrote the court, "the implied allegation is that all applicable insurance policies have been or will be [] exhausted." The court denied the defendant insurance company's motion to strike.