Page 33 - CLT061421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 14, 2021 ■ 33
had improperly rendered judgment for plain- SUPERIOR COURT
tiff due to misconstruing a statute. The court
maintained that plaintiff had never claimed an
exemption to be bound by the statute and that ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE
defendants did not have adequate notice of the
exemption. Nevertheless, because the parties
had filed a signed, joint stipulation of facts that Court Found City Did Not Exhaust
the security deposit was $10,000, and because Administrative Remedies Before
the defendants did not withdraw or modify
that stipulation, the court found them bound Appealing Commission’s Declaratory
by that judicial admission. Thus, defendants Judgment
were unable to argue that the prepayment of CASE: City of Waterbury v. Comm’n on Human Rights &
rent served as a security deposit.
Opportunities
COURT: New Britain J.D.
INSURANCE LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE DOC. NO.: CV-20-6060950
COURT OPINION BY: Klau
Judge Able to Reverse Prior DATE: May 14, 2021 • PAGES: 4
Determination if Convinced Previous Defendant initiated proceedings for a declarato-
ry ruling concerning certain state and municipal
Ruling was Incorrect health insurance polices that excluded medical

CASE: Marco v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. coverage for treatments for gender dysphoria.
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court Defendant published notice of the proceedings
DOC. NO.: AC 43376 in the newspaper announcing that any person
COURT OPINION BY: Cradle seeking party or intervenor status could do so
DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 14 through December 2019. Plaintiff did not do
Plaintiff was injured when a fight broke out so. On April 17, 2020, defendant issued the de-
while she was at a bar that was insured by defen- claratory ruling. Plaintiff appealed the declara-
dant; defendant refused to indemnify the bar, tory ruling and defendant moved to dismiss.
however, because the policy excluded coverage The court granted defendant’s motion. Defen-
for injuries arising out of assault or battery. dant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff
Defendant filed a motion for summary judg- did not meet the statutory aggrievement and ex-
ment. Plaintiff wanted a jury trial, which de- haustion requirements. Even though defendant
fendant contested because it argued that there gave the requisite public notice of the proceed-
were no factual issues but only a legal question. ings, plaintiff chose not to intervene, although
The trial was bifurcated for consideration of it could have participated and objected at that
the legal question. The question of whether the time. Therefore, plaintiff did not exhaust its ad-
policy exemption applied was determined by a ministrative remedies. The court rejected plain-
judge to not permit recovery for injuries. The tiff’s argument that a person who chooses not to
trial court held that defendant did not have a participate in such proceeding but believes that
duty to defend and plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff the resulting ruling may adversely affect them in
argued that the trial court judge erred when he a future proceeding does not have to exhaust ad-
previously did not find the issue of law should ministrative remedies first.
be decided first but then reversed course. The
court disagreed, holding that a judge may BUSINESS TORTS
reach a contrary conclusion if convinced that
the prior ruling was wrong. The court also held Court Granted Plaintiff’s Motion to
that the plaintiff was not improperly deprived
of a jury trial because she was not entitled to Strike a Counterclaim in Part
a jury trial after the issue of law was decided. CASE: Patel v. Bhadra Seva, LLC
Finally, plaintiff argued that it was improper COURT: New Britain J.D.
for the same judge to rule on this matter that DOC. NO.: CV-19-6054874
was involved in settlement negotiations. The COURT OPINION BY: Farley
court held that, because defendant was not li- DATE: May 17, 2021 • PAGES: 16
able for damages, the trial judge could not use Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in 2020
any information that would bias plaintiff. asserting claims against her now former family
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune