Page 32 - CLT072020

32 ¦ JULY 20, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

a production area. This frustrated plaintiff and INSURANCE LITIGATION
he complained to a supervisor. Other misunder-
standings and complaints followed. After several
confrontations with coworkers, plaintiff resigned Court Grants Motion To Strike Where
his position, however he did not provide any no- No Duty Owed To Plaintiff
tice to his employer. Further, his employer made
no note of poor performance or administrative CASE: Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Piro Petroleum, Inc.
discipline with the plaintiff. The referee of the COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV19-6044576S
Employment Security Appeals Board therefore COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
determined that plaintiff walked off the job, DATE: June 29, 2020 • PAGES: 12
which the referee considered to be willful miscon- Property owner retained defendant Halsted Con-
duct, and denied plaintiff unemployment bene- necticut, LLC to list and sell her premises, which
fits. Plaintiff appealed that decision, arguing the contained a water heater and boiler in the base-
employer lied to him about his job duties and that ment. While the property was listed for sale, the
he felt discriminated against due to his race. The water heater and boiler were serviced, and the
court found plaintiff had not filed the required owner learned that the oil tank was empty. Prop-
motion to correct with the board, which limited erty owner had defendant Piro deliver oil to the
the court’s ability to review. However, the court vacant property. Defendant Halstead entered the
found the board failed to find whether the plain- premises several days later and discovered an oil
tiff willfully disregarded the employer’s interest, spill in the basement. The premises was cleaned
and the court reversed the board’s decision. after the oil spill; the cleanup was paid for by

plaintiff insurance company. Plaintiff sought re-
FAMILY LAW imbursement for expenses incurred in cleaning
up the oil spill. Defendant Halsted filed a motion
to strike, arguing it owed no duty to the plaintiff
Court Grants Modification Of Parenting but only to the non-party owner of the premises.
And Child Support In Light Of Changed The court agreed with defendant, finding they
Circumstances owed no duty to the insurance company. The
court found that, while Halsted was contracted
CASE: Morello v. Shukis to sell the property, they were never contracted
COURT: Middlesex J.D. at Middletown to act as property manager to mitigate and in-
DOC. NO.: CV15-6013436 spect the premises for oil deliveries, and that any
COURT OPINION BY: Suarez damages to the property were unforeseeable. The
DATE: June 23, 2020 • PAGES: 12 court granted the motion to strike.

Parties were married in 2014, had one son, and
dissolved the marriage in 2015. In 2016, the par-
ties established a parenting settlement with a de- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE • CIVIL PROCEDURE
tailed schedule. However, once the son was set
to start kindergarten in 2019, defendant sought Court Grants Motion To Dismiss For
to alter the schedule. In 2019 the court entered Lack Of Service
an updated order scheduling parenting, how-
ever plaintiff did not agree to the order, arguing CASE: Tranquillo v. Am. Med. Response of Connecticut, Inc.
that the special needs of the son required more COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
consistency and a structured diet, which she ar- DOC. NO.: CV-20-6094149
gued the defendant could not provide, although COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs
the guardian ad litem noted that neither parent DATE: June 24, 2020 • PAGES: 4
was more or less exceptional than the other. De- Plaintiff brought a claim of negligence and
fendant and plaintiff filed several post-judgment professional malpractice against the defendant
motions in which, essentially, defendant wanted AMR, as well as negligence and professional
more parenting time and reduced child support malpractice against two of AMR’s employees
and healthcare obligations, while plaintiff ob- when responding to a medical emergency. De-
jected to each request. The court considered the fendant filed a motion to dismiss count two on
changes since the 2016 agreement, and granted the grounds of insufficiency and lack of service
defendant’s modification of custody and child of process on the two individuals. The court
support. The court denied defendant’s request found that neither of the two individuals in
for modification of healthcare obligations. the complaint were listed as defendants, and

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune