Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court in this case arising from allegations of sexual harassment brought by the complainant, a judicial marshal who was employed by the Connecticut Judicial Branch, holding that remand was required.A human rights referee with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities concluded that the the allegations were substantiated and awarded the complainant back pay, emotional distress damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The trial court reversed in part, concluding that the award of emotional distress damages must be vacated due to the complainant's failure to comply with discovery requests and that the injunction reinstating the complainant to her former workplace must be vacated as overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) properly concluded that emotional distress damages and attorney's fees were available remedies; but (2) erred in upholding the referee's determination that the state waived its sovereign immunity with respect to prejudgment and post judgment interest awards for civil rights violations. View "Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit based on a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a0815 et seq., asserting breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq. The trial court dismissed the claims, determining that the litigation privilege deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the litigation privilege barred Plaintiff's CUTPA-CUIPA claim. View "Dorfman v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to the Supreme Court by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in this declaratory judgment action by holding that Defendant's plea of nolo contendere could not be used to trigger a criminal acts exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy governed by Connecticut law.At issue was whether Plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company, could use Defendant's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of assault in the first degree to trigger a criminal acts exclusion that would bar Plaintiff's coverage of Defendant in a civil action involving the same underlying incident. The district court certified the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that Defendant's plea of nolo contendere could not be used by Plaintiff to establish the applicability of the criminal acts exclusion of the relevant policy. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tenn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court and concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Plaintiff's action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-584, holding that the appellate court did not err.Plaintiff fell while using a restroom in the Manchester Memorial Hospital and sustained injuries to her shoulder and neck. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that her fall resulted from Defendants' negligence in failing to exercise the care and diligence ordinarily exercised by hospitals. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The appellate court reversed, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to when Plaintiff discovered her injury as contemplated by section 52-584. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact. View "Peek v. Manchester Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that the accidental failure of suit statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-592, did not save the otherwise time-barred action of Plaintiff, executrix of the estate of Theresa Riccio, holding that there was no error.The trial court concluded that Plaintiff's wrongful death action was time barred because her first medical malpractice action was dismissed due to her attorney's gross negligence for failing to file with the complaint legally sufficient medical opinion letters, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-190a(a) and two appellate court decisions interpreting section 52-190a(a). The appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the action was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that the omission of the experts' qualifications was egregious conduct rather than a matter of form or mistake. View "Riccio v. Bristol Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

In this action arising from an explosion at a power generating facility under construction in Middletown the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs' strict liability claims and grant of summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' negligence claims, holding that tort remedies were not available to Plaintiffs under the circumstances of this case.Several the victims of the blast and ensuing fire and their families brought this action against, among others, the power plant's owner, the owner's administrative agent, and the general contactor. The claims against the general contractor were resolved in the contractor's favor. As to the owner and administrative agent, the trial court rendered judgment for Defendants with respect to the strict liability claims and granted summary judgment with respect to the negligence claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court denying Plaintiff's application for a civil protection order, holding that Plaintiff's claims on appeal lacked merit.At issue before the Supreme Court was the standard courts must apply to determine whether an applicant for a civil protection order has established the element of fear. On appeal from the denial of her application for a civil protection order Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the trial court improperly interpreted Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-16a as creating a subjective-objective standard for establishing fear rather than a purely objective standard. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly interpreted section 46b-16a; (2) none of the trial court's factual findings was clearly erroneous; and (3) section 46b-16a does not violate the equal protection clause of the Connecticut constitution. View "L.H.-S. v. N.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Defendant, as a hospital, was not a product seller for purposes of imposing strict liability under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m et seq., under the circumstances of this case, holding that the trial court did not err.Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging injuries arising from Defendant's violations of, among other things, the product liability act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq., and common law. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that Defendant was not a product seller for purposes of imposing strict liability under the product liability act and that Plaintiff's CUTPA and common law claims were time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant provided general information regarding various medical procedures on its website and did not significantly participate in placing the medical device at issue into the stream of commerce Defendant was not a product seller for purposes of imposing strict liability under the product liability act; and (2) the statutes of limitations governing Plaintiff's remaining claims were not tolled. View "Normandy v. American Medical Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-464, as amended by section 1 of No. 17-165 of the 2017 Public Acts (P.A. 17-165), did not authority the City of Waterbury's lien in this case, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, an employee of the City, which is a self-insured municipality, was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The City paid for Plaintiff's medical care resulting from his injuries. After Plaintiff initiated an action against the third-party tortfeasor who caused the accident, the City filed a notice of lien with Plaintiff's attorney, claiming a right to reimbursement of the medical expenses it had paid. Plaintiff subsequently settled his civil action and brought this action contesting the validity of the City's lien on the proceeds of his settlement. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that P.A. 17-165 did not apply retroactively to pending actions, such as Plaintiff's. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly determined that the City's lien stemmed from an improper, retroactive application of P.A. 17-165. View "Maghfour v. Waterbury" on Justia Law

In this case arising from the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs by Allison Marchese, an English teacher at their high school, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the ground of governmental immunity, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs brought this action for damages against the town of Madison, the town's Board of Education, and the principal of the Daniel Hand High School, pursuant to the municipal liability statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n, claiming that they were injured by Defendants' failure to prevent and/or interrupt Marchese's inappropriate relationship with Plaintiffs and to report Marchese's conduct to the proper authorities. The trial court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. View "Doe v. Madison" on Justia Law