Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued Defendants, the driver of a vehicle and the vehicle's owner, for negligence after the driver of the vehicle struck Plaintiff's vehicle, causing injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted an offer of compromise to Defendants, proposing to settle the case. Defendants did not accept the offer during the statutory period under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-192a. Later, the trial court granted Defendants' motion to strike the offer of compromise as a sanction for a discovery violation. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and the trial court then denied Plaintiff's posttrial motion for offer of compromise interest. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding the trial court's striking of the offer of compromise was within the scope of its judicial authority, but doing so in this case was an abuse of discretion because nothing in the record warranted the sanction in the absence of a finding of bad faith or significant prejudice. Remanded with direction to grant Plaintiff's motion for offer of compromise interest. View "Yeager v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife (Wife) sued Defendant for negligence and loss of consortium after Defendant's vehicle struck Plaintiff's vehicle and injured Wife. Wife subsequently withdrew her claims pursuant to a settlement agreement she entered into with Defendant, and Plaintiff withdrew his negligence claim. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's remaining claim, concluding that Plaintiff's loss of consortium claim was barred by the settlement of Wife's negligence claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to legally binding precedent, because a consortium claim is derivative of the injured spouse's cause of action, the consortium claim is barred when the suit brought by the injured spouse has been terminated by settlement; and (2) strong policy reasons support the application of this rule to claims such as Plaintiff's. View "Voris v. Molinaro" on Justia Law

After Employee received numerous elevated blood pressure readings and was prescribed hypertension medication, Employee filed a notice of claim for hypertension benefits. The workers' compensation commissioner (1) found that a physician informed Employee more than one year prior to filing his claim that he had hypertension, and (2) concluded that, because Employee's claim was filed more than one year after that date, his claim was untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-294c(a). The compensation review board affirmed. While Employee's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ciarlelli v. Hamden, in which it held that the one year limitation period set forth in section 31-294c(a) for claims for hypertension benefits does not commence until an employee is informed by a medical professional that he or she has been diagnosed with hypertension. At issue on appeal was whether the time limitation period was triggered only after Employee's physician prescribed medication for his condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Employee was, in fact, diagnosed with hypertension more than one year before he filed his claim, the board properly upheld the commissioner's dismissal of Employee's claim for benefits. View "Roohr v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

After Employee was diagnosed with hypertension, Employee filed a notice of claim for hypertension benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-433c(a). The workers' compensation commissioner dismissed Employee's claim as untimely under the one year limitation period of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-294c(a), finding that Employee had notice of his hypertension more than one year before he filed his claim for benefits. The compensation review board affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether advice from a medical professional to Employee that he had an elevated blood pressure triggered the one year limitation period. While Employee's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ciarlelli v. Hamden, which held that the one year limitation period set forth in section 31-294c(a) for claims brought pursuant to section 7-433c does not commence until an employee is informed by a medical professional that he or she has been diagnosed with hypertension. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the board applied an incorrect legal standard in upholding the commissioner's dismissal of Employee's claim. View "Brymer v. Clinton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that certain medical malpractice claims that they had asserted in an action against a medical association were covered under an insurance policy issued to the facility by Insurer. Due to Insurer's insolvency during the pendency of the action, Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association assumed liability for Insurer's obligations to the extent that claims were covered under the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Act. The Association filed a counterclaim, contending that the claims against the medical association were not covered because they were subject to a policy provision that excluded them from corporate coverage liability. The trial rendered rendered judgment in Plaintiffs' favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the policy exclusion was inapplicable to the medical association's coverage for claims brought against it predicated solely on liability that it may have occurred through the acts of one of its nurse practitioners. View "Johnson v. Conn. Ins. Guar. Ass'n" on Justia Law

This medical malpractice case arose out of the claimed failure of Defendant, Mandell and Blau, M.D.'s, P.C., properly and promptly to diagnose Plaintiff, Brenda Sawicki, with breast cancer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed the trial court, determining that the trial court had abused its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by jurors' predeliberation discussions. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding that there was ample evidence of repeated, egregious misconduct and that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated prejudice. View "Sawicki v. New Britain Gen. Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, American Diamond Exchange, brought an action against Defendant, Jurgita Karobikaite, and her husband, Scott Alpert, after Alpert, who was working as an estate buyer for Plaintiff, diverted Plaintiff's customers so that he could personally purchase their jewelry. Defendant shared in the profits. A judgment of default was entered against Alpert. The court found Defendant liable for tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy and civil conspiracy and awarded Plaintiff $118,000 in damages. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court as to damages and remanded for a recalculation of damages based on the existing record. On remand, the trial court awarded $103,355 in damages to Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence from which its lost profits could be determined with reasonable certainty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was not precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to raise it in her direct appeal or because the appellate court decided the claim against her in the first appeal; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support an award of damages. View "Am. Diamond Exch., Inc. v. Alpert" on Justia Law

These two consolidated appeals arose from the collision of two city fire trucks. As a result of the collision, firefighter John Keane died, and firefighter William Mahoney suffered serious injuries. Monica Keane brought an action against Defendants, the firefighters who drove the trucks, alleging negligence in their operation of the fire trucks and that their negligence caused John Keane's death. In the second case, William and Erin Mahoney filed a complaint against Defendants, two firefighters and the city, alleging that the firefighters were negligent and that their negligence caused William Mahoney to sustain injuries. In both cases, the trial court granted the motions of Defendants to strike all counts of the complaint, concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-308 barred firefighters who are eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits from bringing negligence actions against other firefighters for their injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court, holding that section 7-308 does not violate equal protection and, therefore, the trial court properly granted Defendants' motions to strike on the ground that the actions were barred by the immunity provision in section 7-308. View "Keane v. Fischetti" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were former husband and wife. Following the dissolution of their marriage, Defendant was granted joint custody and visitation rights of the parties' two daughters. Defendant then reported that her eldest daughter had been sexually abused by Plaintiff. As a result of the investigation, Defendant was charged with risk of injury to a child, false reporting of an incident, false statement in the second degree, attempt to commit malicious prosecution, and sexual assault in the fourth degree. Following Defendant's guilty plea, Plaintiff filed a complaint sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly improperly applied the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff's claim was time barred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the appellate court improperly concluded that the existence of an original duty must be established before applying the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in a nonnegligence cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. View "Watts v. Chittenden" on Justia Law

An employee of Plaintiff, the town of Southbury, was injured in a car accident with Defendants, Patricia and Joseph Gonyea, during the course of employment. Employee applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from Plaintiff. Employee also made a claim against Defendants, which was settled for the Defendants' policy insurance limit. After Plaintiff perfected its statutory lien rights, Employee forwarded to Plaintiff the net proceeds he received from the settlement. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced the present action to recover past and future works' compensation benefits it had paid, or would become obligated to pay, as a result of Employee's injuries. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff had assented to the settlement between Employee and Defendants and, thus, was barred from pursuing this action. The trial court granted Defendants' motion, concluding Plaintiff had assented to the settlement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff assented to the settlement and voluntarily relinquished its rights to recover an outstanding balance through subsequent litigation. View "Town of Southbury v. Gonyea" on Justia Law