Page 33 - CLT061520

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 15, 2020 ¦ 33

March 2016, the bonus payments stopped altogeth- INSURANCE LITIGATION
er. Defendants filed a counterclaim for unjust en-
richment, among others, alleging that plaintiff had
claimed and received bonuses exceeding what she Court Allowed Defendant To File An
was actually due under the parties’ agreement. The Apportionment Complaint Against
court found that both parties failed to substantiate Plaintiffs’ Insurance Carrier
their claims at trial. The parties’ agreement was am-
biguous as to how former Chief customers were to CASE: Ocasio v. Fulton
be identified. Ultimately, neither party was able to COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
prove the number of former Chief customers that DOC. NO.: CV-19-6049631
began doing business with defendants, and neither COURT OPINION BY: Gordon
party was able reliably to document the value of de- DATE: May 15, 2020 • PAGES: 12
fendants’ monthly gross sales to former Chief cus-
tomers. Further, multiple glaring errors in plaintiff’s Plaintiffs sued defendant for negligence after defen-
testimony undermined her credibility. She herself dant hit them with her car. Defendant then filed
acknowledged her poor recall of dates and events. an apportionment complaint against the plaintiff’s
Defendants offered credible testimony, however, insurance carrier GEICO, alleging that an uniden-
as to the intended limited duration of their bonus tified car swerved into her lane, which caused the
offer: it was to last for the first 24 months of plain- defendant to hit plaintiffs’ car. GEICO filed a mo-
tiff’s employment only, and was never intended to tion to strike and the court denied it. The issue be-
extend beyond that date. The court rendered judg- fore the court was whether a defendant can file an
ment against plaintiff on her claims, and against apportionment complaint against the plaintiffs’ in-
defendants on their counterclaims. surance on the theory that the accident was caused
by an unknown car, even though the plaintiff did
not name GEICO in their original complaint. The
court found that defendant’s apportionment com-
Court Finds Employee Exhausted plaint was legally sufficient. It reasoned that de-
Administrative Remedies Of Collective fendant was seeking to apportion liability against
Bargaining Agreement plaintiffs’ insurance company in its capacity as a
surrogate for the unknown driver whose alleged
CASE: Carbonardo-Schroeter v. Mancini negligence constituted part of the “universe of neg-
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6076363 ligence” responsible for plaintiffs’ injuries. There-
fore, the court denied GEICO’s motion to strike.
COURT OPINION BY: Kamp
DATE: May 27, 2020 • PAGES: 11
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Plaintiff was employed with the city of New Haven
as deputy director of the city of New Haven’s Liv-
able City Initiative which included residential loan Court Found That Plaintiffs’ Offers
programs. Defendant owned a realty company, Of Compromise Were Statutorily
and applied biannually for contracts to inspect Compliant Even Though They Were
city programs including the loan initiative. Defen- Filed Before The Substitution Of A
dant issued false complaints about the plaintiff to Party Was Made
plaintiff’s employers, including false accusations
of racial prejudice and manipulation of bidding.
Plaintiff brought claims against defendant for libel CASE: Sammon v. Gordon
and tortious interference with business relations COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury
and against the city aiding and abetting and in- DOC. NO.: CV-18-6025331
tentional infliction of emotional distress. The city COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski
moved to dismiss the aiding and abetting claims, DATE: May 18, 2020 • PAGES: 13
arguing the plaintiff failed to exhaust administra- Plaintiffs sued defendants, a physician and a hos-
tive remedies through the grievance procedures pital, for medical malpractice. They alleged that
of her collective bargaining agreement, and the one plaintiff suffered injuries due to defendants’
plaintiff opposed the motion. The court found her negligence during and after a surgery. The physi-
complaint was subject to the CBA, and the court cian passed away and the court granted the plain-
found the plaintiff submitted the CBA as evidence tiffs’ motion to substitute an executrix of the estate.
that all of her administrative remedies were met. However, prior to filing the motion for substitution
The court denied the city’s motion to dismiss. of party, the plaintiffs filed offers of compromise

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune