Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2003, multiple residents of Greenwood Health Center, a nursing home, died or were injured when another resident set fire to the facility. Thirteen negligence actions seeking damages for wrongful death or serious bodily injury were filed against Greenwood, the lessee of the property housing Greenwood, the owner and lessor of the property, and the operator of Greenwood. Lexington Insurance Company (Plaintiff) brought this declaratory judgment action against the lessor of the Greenwood property, which was the insured party under a policy issued by Plaintiff, the other Greenwood entities, and the victims’ personal representatives. Following the filing of cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined the amount of coverage available under the policy and rendered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appealed the judgment of the trial court determining available coverage, and four of the individual defendants cross appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court improperly interpreted the endorsement relating to the aggregate policy limit, thereby providing more coverage for the individual defendants’ claims than that to which they were entitled; and (2) the trial court improperly applied the self-insured retention endorsement to reduce the available coverage. Remanded. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Fairchild Heights Residents Association, Inc. (Association), filed suit against Defendant, Fairchild Heights, Inc., for negligence and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The trial court found in favor of Defendant on all counts. The Association appealed, arguing that the appellate court erred in concluding that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before requesting declaratory relief and that it did not have standing to bring an action under CUTPA. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Association had standing to assert a CUPTA claim, as (1) there was no administrative remedy the association could have exhausted to obtain the relief it sought before bringing its CUTPA claim; and (2) the Association did not require the participation of all its individual members to allege ascertainable loss for the purpose of obtaining injunctive and other equitable relief under CUTPA. Remanded for a new trial on Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim. View "Fairchild Heights Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc." on Justia Law

This action arose from a rear-end collision allegedly caused by Zabian Bailey. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Bailey for negligence and against Progressive Northern Insurance Company for underinsured motorist benefits. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Progressive filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict, claiming that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find or infer negligence and proximate cause. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded with direction to grant Progressive’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence in this case was sufficient for a jury reasonably to find or infer that it was more probable than not that Bailey was negligent and that his negligence caused the collision. Remanded. View "Rawls v. Progressive N. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Janine Cannizzaro (Plaintiff) was involved in an automobile accident with Stephan Marinyak that caused catastrophic injuries to Plaintiff. Shortly before the accident, Marinyak, who was working for Diane Mayo (Defendant) during the restoration of Defendant's home, had consumed alcohol on the work site before leaving the premises in his car. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging negligent supervision, negligent service of alcohol, and reckless service of alcohol. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care where Defendant never served alcohol to Marinyak, had no knowledge that Marinyak was drinking while on her property, had instructed a supervisor that she did not want Marinyak drinking while on her property, and was not present on the day of the accident. View "Cannizzaro v. Marinyak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Leslie Milliun's conservator, filed a negligence suit against Defendant hospital, alleging that, while in Defendant's care, Leslie suffered severe respiratory dysfunction which resulted in Leslie's severe brain injury. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff failed to offer the requisite expert testimony to create an issue of material fact regarding Defendant's alleged negligence as the proximate cause of Leslie's injuries. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in (1) refusing to admit certain medical records of Leslie's treating physicians as expert opinion on causation, and (2) concluding that its order granting Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a commission so Leslie's out-of-state treating physicians could be deposed should be withdrawn because the physicians could not be compelled to offer expert opinion on causation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly determined that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to admit certain statements contained within the medical records to establish a causal connection between Leslie's injuries and the alleged negligence.View "Milliun v. New Milford Hosp." on Justia Law

While working for Employer, Employee filed notice of a workers' compensation claim related to a lower back injury he received during the course of his employment. Employee was discharged approximately four years later pursuant to a termination agreement that provided that he agreed to release Employer from any and all workers' compensation claims. Employer later brought an action against Employee, alleging civil theft, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion based on Defendant's admission that he never intended to release his workers' compensation claim. Employee counterclaimed, claiming that Employer's cause of action was in retaliation for Employee's decision to exercise his rights under the Workers' Compensation Act. Employer filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, asserting that the doctrine of absolute immunity shielded Employer from the counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, holding that an employer's right to seek redress for its alleged grievances in court does not outweigh an employee's interest in exercising his rights under the Act without fear of retaliation by his employer, and therefore, absolute immunity did not shield Employer from Employee's counterclaim.View "MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti" on Justia Law

The City of Hartford police responded to a report of domestic violence at the apartment where Decedent resided. After the officers left the scene, Decedent was shot and killed. Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of Decedent, brought a wrongful death action against the City, alleging that the police officers were negligent in failing to remain at the scene of the domestic violence for a reasonable amount of time until the likelihood of imminent violence had been eliminated. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding that the City was entitled to immunity. The Appellate Court affirmed, determining that any duty for the officers to remain at the scene was discretionary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any such duty was discretionary, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to immunity from liability. View "Coley v. Hartford" on Justia Law

While intoxicated, Plaintiff stumbled and fell into a bonfire and suffered serious burns. Plaintiff brought an action for negligence and recklessness against Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent and reckless in allowing Plaintiff, who was underage, to drink alcohol at Defendant’s home to the point of intoxication and to attend the bonfire while intoxicated. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence because the doctrine was not a legally recognized defense for a claim involving service of alcohol to minors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury to consider whether the negligence of Plaintiff materially contributed to cause his injuries. View "Stafford v. Roadway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as conservator of the person of her daughter, filed a complaint against Defendant, claiming that Defendant committed sexual battery, civil assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial because an exhibit that was not admitted into evidence at trial was mistakenly given to the jury during its deliberations and had the potential to have a prejudicial impact on the jury. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and reversed, holding (1) the exhibit was not properly admitted into evidence and, therefore, was not properly before the jury; and (2) the submission of that document to the jury constituted reversible error. Remanded for a new trial. View "Kortner v. Martise" on Justia Law

Plaintiff successfully bid at a combined foreclosure sale of real estate and secured party auction of personal property owned by Debtors. Bank held mortgage and security interests in the real and personal property. Auctioneer conducted the auction. After purchasing the property, Plaintiff discovered he would not receive much of the personal property he believed to be in the sale. Plaintiff and the current owner of the property (Plaintiffs) brought this action against Debtors, Bank, and Auctioneer (collectively, Defendants), claiming that Defendants' failure to inform Plaintiffs there were conflicting claims as to the ownership of the property constituted negligence and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), among other causes of action. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on four of their counts. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that Defendants had a common-law duty to Plaintiffs to properly identify the personal property that was subject to the secured party sale; and (2) lacked the authority to award nontaxable costs pursuant to CUTPA. View "Ulbrich v. Groth" on Justia Law