Page 31 - CLT072020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 20, 2020 ¦ 31

company subsequently engaged a law firm on CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • DAMAGES
defendants’ behalf to defend them. Plaintiff
then sued defendants to collect outstanding
legal fees. The defendants filed an answer, two Court Grants Plaintiff’s Summary
special defenses, and a counterclaim claiming Judgment Motion In Indemnification
legal malpractice. Plaintiff sued for vexatious Action
litigation, claiming that the defendants filed
these claims and defenses against him without CASE: Brass Mill Center, LLC v. Subway Real Estate Corp.
probable cause and with malicious intent. The COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
trial court granted the defendants’ motions for DOC. NO.: CV-16-6031856-S
summary judgment as to the vexatious litiga- COURT OPINION BY: Roraback
tion action. Plaintiff appealed and the court DATE: June 11, 2020 • PAGES: 10
reversed in part. The court held that the trial
court erroneously granted the defendants’ mo- Plaintiff owns a mall center in Connecticut, and
tion for summary judgment because there was had a security agreement in place with defendant
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether AlliedBarton, under which defendant agreed to
the defendants had probable cause to assert the defend plaintiff in claims or suits against the
defenses and file the counterclaim. The plain- plaintiff. One morning, an underage and unli-
tiff had submitted exhibits indicating that Laser censed driver struck Perez, a pedestrian while
was aware when he hired plaintiff that insurance she attempted to crossed the “ring road” which
coverage was available to him but didn’t want to circled plaintiff ’s mall. Perez died, and her es-
submit a claim. Furthermore, there was an issue tate brought a lawsuit against plaintiff. Plaintiff
as to whether the defendants relied in good faith settled the claim, and brought the current action
on their new lawyers’ advice when asserting the against AlliedBarton for damages it suffered in
special defenses and counterclaim. settling the claim, including the cost of legal
fees and defending itself. Both parties moved for
summary judgment, with AlliedBarton arguing
that plaintiff failed to provide a thirty-day writ-
SUPERIOR COURT ten notice of the claim as required by the agree-
ment, however the court found AlliedBarton
still had sufficient notice of the claim. The court
found in favor of plaintiff, and granted summary
CIVIL PROCEDURE • SOCIAL MEDIA judgment in part for the settlement, but denied

Court Grants Motion For Leave To as to common law indemnification. The court
Amend Complaint To Add Claim Under denied defendant’s motions for summary judg-
ment, and ordered AlliedBarton to reimburse
CUTPA plaintiff for costs suffered in the settlement of
the Perez action.
CASE: Homestead Operations, LLC v. Shaw
COURT: Danbury J.D.
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6034013 EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski Court Reverses Decision of
DATE: June 30, 2020 • PAGES: 4
Plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant
alleging defendant used the website Yelp to post Employment Security Board Where
several false negative reviews of the plaintiff ’s Referee Failed To Determine If
hotel, resulting in damages to their business op- Employee Willfully Disregarded
eration. Plaintiff sought leave to amend their Employer’s Interest
complaint to add a claim under the Connecti-
cut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which defen- CASE: Hernandez v. Adm’r, Unemployment Comp. Act
dant opposed alleging a lack of standing under COURT: Danbury J.D.
CUTPA. The court found the defendant’s oppo- DOC. NO.: CV-19-5015678-S
sition to the motion was neither ripe for adjudi- COURT OPINION BY: Lavery
cation nor procedurally proper, and found that DATE: June 30, 2020 • PAGES: 12
the leave to amend would not unduly delay the Plaintiff was hired as an assembly technician
trial, and granted plaintiff ’s motion for leave to but during his first weeks of employment, he
amend the complaint. was assigned to move equipment and prepare

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune