Page 35 - CLT061421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 14, 2021 ■ 35
because plaintiff expressed concerns about CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
school of business programs and also raised
concerns about nepotism. The case was heard Motion to Strike Denied Where
in multiple courts. Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment as to all counts. The court Contract Language Ambiguous
granted the motion in part. The court granted CASE: Arthurs v. AIG Fin. Prod. Corp.
the motion as to Count One, which asserted a COURT: Stamford-Norwalk J.D, Complex Litigation Docket

violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. DOC. NO.: CV-19-6046057
The court held that this count was barred by COURT OPINION BY: Ozalis
collateral estoppel, as the federal court already DATE: May 24, 2021 • PAGES: 15
ruled on that issue. Furthermore, the court also Plaintiffs, 46 former high-level executives
found that plaintiff’s alleged grievance speech of the defendant financial corporation, al-
was not protected under either the federal or leged defendant improperly borrowed money
state constitution. The court denied the motion from their deferred compensation and incen-
as to the claim presented in Count Two based tive payment plans. Plaintiffs brought breach
on the nepotism speech. of contract claims, and further alleged that,
despite several reassurances of restoring the
CONTRACTS funds, defendants had not adopted any plans
to restore the funds. Defendant moved to
Third-Party Plaintiffs Did Not Plead strike, arguing plaintiffs’ breach of contract
claims relied on a misinterpretation of the
Facts to Establish a Common-Law Right plan language. The court found the language
to Indemnification of the plans was susceptible to more than one
interpretation and was ambiguous. The court
CASE: Taylor v. Potucek therefore denied the motion to strike. The
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport court also denied the defendant’s motion to
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6088738 strike on the breach of implied covenant of
COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs
DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 14 good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff, an employee of defendant Hamilton
Connections, claimed that he was operating a CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
leaf blower attached to a truck trailer that was
moved by defendant Potucek. Potucek was an Bank Unable to Get Special Defenses
employee of the Town of Trumbull. The leaf Stricken in Mortgage Case
blower hit plaintiff and he sustained injuries.
Defendants Potucek and the Town filed a third CASE: Fairfield County Bank v. Kuehn
party complaint against Hamilton Connec- COURT: Danbury J.D.
tions, arguing that Hamilton was contractually DOC. NO.: CV-19-6032378
obligated to fully indemnify them against all COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski
damages and attorney fees. Hamilton filed the DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 10
current motion to strike the third party com- A bank, that moved to strike a special defense
plaint. The court granted the motion. Ham- of unclean hands in a mortgage foreclosure
ilton argued that Potucek and the Town failed matter against a property owner, was unable
to allege any facts to support a contractual to show that the special defense was not legal-
right to indemnification. The court found that ly sufficient. In 2009, the defendant, Juergen
without any express contract of indemnity or Kuehn, executed a promissory note with the
implied contract of indemnity, the third-party plaintiff, Fairfield County Bank, secured by a
plaintiffs did not plead the necessary elements mortgage on the property. After the note went
to establish a common-law right to indemnifi- into default, plaintiff moved to foreclose on the
cation based in contract. The court reasoned property. In addition, plaintiff filed additional
that there was no appellate authority cited that claims against the defendants, alleging equitable
imposes a quasi-contractual duty upon a con- subrogation, because the defendants executed
tractor to indemnify a town when its employ- a mortgage with the defendant Trust without
ee is injured in the course of working for the disclosure, as well as unjust enrichment and de-
town. Therefore, the court granted Hamilton’s claratory judgment. The Trust filed an answer
motion to strike the third party complaint. and alleged a special defense of unclean hands,
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune