Page 38 - CLT032221

38 ¦ MARCH 22, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

CRIMINAL LAW Plaintiff was hired by defendant as a legal coun-
sel. As a result of their extensive work in the
Presence of Key Fob Insufficient to EU, plaintiff determined that defendant was re-
Establish Operation of Motor Vehicle quired to comply with the newly enacted Gen-
eral Data Protection Regulation, however when
plaintiff informed defendant of this requirement
CASE: State v. Borges she was terminated, with the explanation that
COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury G.A. #4 she did not qualify or possess the expertise to
DOC. NO.: U04W-CR20-0489021
COURT OPINION BY: Schwartz be GDPR officer. Plaintiff brought a complaint
DATE: February 25, 2021 • PAGES: 6 against defendant for statutory violations under
A witness observed the defendant exit a liquor General Statutes §31-51q (speech as a matter of
store and enter his car, although he did not en- public concern) and wrongful discharge. The
gage the ignition. While sitting behind the wheel parties’ two counsels conducted settlement ne-
of the vehicle, the witness observed the defen- gotiations strictly by way of email, and defen-
dant take three nips of alcohol and drink a beer. dant brought a motion to enforce a settlement
When police approached the defendant’s ve- agreement. Plaintiff argued no agreement had
hicle, the engine was not running, however he actually been reached and the parties were con-
performed sobriety tests at the request of the tinuing to negotiate, but the court determined
police and failed. The defendant’s vehicle used through those emails that plaintiff had in fact
a “key fob” ignition system, which did not re- accepted a settlement offer. The court noted the
quire a key entry to operate the vehicle but only defendant’s offer was clear and unambiguous,
the presence of the fob in the nearby area of the and the plaintiff did not raise any objection to
driver’s seat, and the fob was located in the de- the proposed amount. The court found the lan-
fendant’s front pocket. Defendant was arrested guage of the emails indicated a meeting of the
and charged with operation while under the in- minds and court granted the motion to enforce
fluence, drinking while operating a motor vehi- the settlement. The court admonished the coun-
cle, and operation of a motor vehicle while li- sels for failing to use a telephone to ensure their
cense is suspended. Defendant moved to dismiss communications were not misunderstood.
the case, arguing at no point was he “operating”
the vehicle within the meaning of the statutes,
and thus failed to meet critical elements of each INSURANCE LITIGATION

charge. The state argued that sitting in the driv- Recipient of Insured Ring not Entitled
er’s seat with a key fob present was tantamount to Receive Payment on Policy when
to inserting the key into the ignition of the ve-
hicle, however the court disagreed, noting that
turning a key is an intentional action of starting Not Listed as Insured

a car while the mere presence of a fob was not CASE: Caccamo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
an intentional action. As such, the court found COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
defendant did not make any intentional action DOC. NO.: CV-20-6130742
to set the mechanics of the vehicle in operation, COURT OPINION BY: Noble
and therefore could not be found guilty of op- DATE: February 24, 2021 • PAGES: 4
erating a motor vehicle. The court granted the
defendant’s motion to dismiss. Co-plaintiff Caccamo purchased an engagement
ring, which he gifted to co-plaintiff Karas, and
insured the ring under a policy with defendant
State Farm, with Caccamo being named as the
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION sole policy holder. The ring was lost during the

Court Grants Motion to Enforce policy period, but State Farm declined payment
under the policy. Co-plaintiffs brought a claim
Settlement based on Email against State Farm alleging breach of the insur-
Communications ance contract, and State Farm moved to dismiss
the claim from Karas arguing she was not listed
as a policy holder. The court agreed with State
CASE: Blackwell v. Sportech, Inc. Farm, finding Karas was not legally entitled
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven to receive payment where Caccamo possessed
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6094897
COURT OPINION BY: Wahla a superior right to receive payment. The court
DATE: March 01, 2021 • PAGES: 8 granted the motion to dismiss against Karas.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune