Page 30 - CLT062121
P. 30

30  ■  JUNE 21, 2021                 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
        the plaintiff, Julie Burt, experienced water in her  Plaintiff was insured by defendant, and de-
        basement, and pursuant to her agreement, noti- fendant failed to pay her underinsured mo-
        fied the defendant, the condominium association,  torist claim; she claimed that this is a larger
        that there were cracks outside the building causing  pattern by defendant where it only pays a rea-
        water damage inside her basement. The associa- sonable amount once a lawsuit is commenced.
        tion refused to assist, as they deemed the damage  Plaintiff issued a subpoena, alleging defen-
        to be to her property only. After multiple years,  dant was engaged in bad faith settlement
        the association continuously denied assistance as  practice. The subpoena required defendant to
        well as failed to properly investigate the matter.  produce trial claims files from 2014 to 2021
        After plaintiff brought suit, the court awarded her  by claimants against defendant for uninsured/
        actual damages, but denied other forms of relief.  underinsured insurance, where the settlement
                                                           exceeded the amount initially offered prior to
        DISCOVERY                                          suit. Plaintiff also moved to get documents
                                                           for lawsuits alleging that defendant violated
                                                           the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices
        Motion for Bill of Discovery Granted               Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Prac-
        where Executor of Estate had No Other  tices Act. Defendant moved to quash the
        Means to Access Information                        subpoena, arguing that the discovery period
                                                           ended and it  would be unduly burdensome
        CASE: Nowak v. Envtl. Energy Serv., Inc.           to produce the documents. The court agreed
        COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury                     that it would be unfair to require defendant
        DOC. NO.: CV-20-6034907                            to produce all of the documents during that
        COURT OPINION BY: Brazzel-Massaro                  time period; however, it did order defendant
        DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 10                    to produce files related to cases specifically
        Plaintiff is the widow and executor of the estate   identified in the amended complaint, as those
        of decedent Nowak, who was a co-founder of         files would have been identified and reviewed
        Environmental Energy Services and who main-        by defendant already.
        tained over 20 percent of all shares in defendant
        Environmental Energy Services. In an effort to     EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
        manage decedent’s estate, plaintiff sought infor-
        mation related to defendant’s corporate structure
        and potential improper accounting, however the     Motion to Strike Denied where Plaintiff
        defendant declined to provide access to this in-   Terminated for Speech Involving Public
        formation. Plaintiff filed an action for a bill of   Concern
        discovery for documents and records, includ-
        ing certificate of incorporation, bylaws in effect,  CASE: Smalls v. The Mary Wade Home, Inc.
        resolutions adopted by the board of directors,  COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
        financial records, and minutes of shareholder’s    DOC. NO.: CV-20-6107550
        meetings  among  other  items. The  court  found   COURT OPINION BY: Kamp
        there was sufficient probable cause presented to   DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 14
        grant the petition for the bill of discovery, and   Plaintiff was employed  with  defendant  as  a
        granted the motion with respect to all requested   licensed practical nurse. Defendant’s COVID-
        documentation.                                     19 quarantine protocol designated one floor
                                                           in its facility for patients who were posi-
                                                           tive and another floor for patients who were
        DISCOVERY • INSURANCE LITIGATION                   negative. Facility staff who were negative for
                                                           COVID-19 were assigned to the floor for neg-
        Plaintiff Entitled to Documents Post-              ative patients, when possible, and nurses who
        Discovery Period if Identified in                  had previously tested positive for COVID-19
        Complaint                                          were assigned to work on the floor for patients
                                                           who had a positive test. Plaintiff reported to
        CASE: Krausman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.            the infection control nurse that her supervisor
        COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford           was showing COVID-19 symptoms and was
        DOC. NO.: CV 17-6030945                            on the COVID-19 negative floor, exposing
        COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich                         negative patients. The next day her supervisor
        DATE: June 02, 2021 • PAGES: 6                     assigned plaintiff to the COVID-19 positive
        CONNECTICUT
           Law Tribune
   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35