Page 30 - CLT081020

30 ¦ AUGUST 10, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

was covered under a policy issued by State Farm, LEGAL MALPRACTICE
based on statements allegedly made to him by a
State Farm agent. Plaintiff sued Jorge for her in-
juries. State Farm refused to provide a defense, Plaintiff’s Affidavit Insufficient to
asserting that Jorge was not insured. Plaintiff and Defeat Summary Judgment
Jorge reached an agreement to settle plaintiff’s
personal injury clam for a stipulated judgment CASE: Gottesman v. Kratter
of $300,000. When State Farm failed to pay the COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV17-6032561
judgment, plaintiff sued State Farm for breach COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
of contract and related claims. State Farm moved DATE: July 20, 2020 • PAGES: 43
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction The court granted defendant’s partial motion for
and lack of standing, asserting that insofar as summary judgment, finding that defendant’s mo-
Jorge is not a State Farm insured, plaintiff lacks tion failed to address a fifth count for breach of
standing to bring claims against it. The court de- contract, which accordingly remained in the case.
nied the motion to dismiss, finding that the issues Following the dissolution of her marriage, plaintiff
raised by State Farm go not only to the issues of sued the attorney who represented her and the two
standing and jurisdiction, but to the merits of law firms with which the attorney was successively
plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, resolution of the affiliated, alleging breach of contract, malprac-
jurisdictional question must be deferred until tice, and related claims. The lawsuit was later split
after both discovery and a full trial on the merits. into two actions, one against the attorney and one

LANDLORD TENANT LAW against the law firms, although the issues raised in
both were largely similar, if not identical. In this
action, defendant attorney moved for summary
Alleged Failures to Repair Did Not judgment as to four of the five claims against him,
Render Leased Residential Premises erroneously believing that the remaining claim, for
Uninhabitable breach of contract, was disposed of in prior sum-
mary judgment proceedings. As to the four claims
properly addressed in defendant’s motion, the
CASE: Parrott v. Colon court granted summary judgment. The court ex-
COURT: Middlesex J.D., Housing Session at Middlesex plained that plaintiff, in opposing defendant’s mo-
DOC. NO.: CV19-5012305 tion, elected to rely on an affidavit previously filed
COURT OPINION BY: Woods in the companion case against the law firms. That
DATE: July 08, 2020 • PAGES: 5 affidavit, unfortunately, failed to address several is-
sues presented by defendant’s motion. The affidavit
The court rendered judgment in favor of defen- also contained assertions that were, at best, conclu-
dant landlord, finding that none of the violations sory and, at worst, indisputably inaccurate. Plain-
alleged by plaintiff tenant materially affected the tiff accordingly failed to support, in fact-specific
health, safety, or habitability of the premises. terms, her claim that defendant, in representing her
Plaintiff filed a housing code enforcement action
against defendant, asserting that he suffered inju-
ries as the result of defendant’s failure to main- in the dissolution action, failed to properly pursue
tain the premises. Plaintiff alleged six violations: her claim that her former husband had forged her
failure to maintain the plumbing and filtration signature on mortgage and other loan documents,
system for the swimming pool; (2) failure to re- so as to extract all value from the mortgaged prop-
pair and/or maintain the furnace providing heat erties. Instead, she asserted in conclusory fashion
to the second floor; (3) failure to repair and/or only that she ended up with worthless property
maintain the trash compactor; (4) failure to re- and an inadequate division of assets, allegedly as
pair and/or maintain the patio lights; (5) failure the result of defendant attorney’s promise to pur-
to repair and/or maintain the front doorbell; and sue claims that he ultimately failed to pursue. For
(6 failure to clean the chimneys. After hearing this and other reasons, defendant’s motion for
testimony from both the local building inspector summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims of in-
and the local health inspector, the court conclud- tentional and negligent misrepresentation had to
ed that none of plaintiff’s claims were so signifi- be granted. The same failings also affected plain-
cant or so substantial that living under such con- tiff’s claim for legal malpractice, but were com-
ditions would be detrimental to plaintiff’s safety pounded by plaintiff’s failure to support her claim
and welfare. The court accordingly rendered with any expert opinion, which, as plaintiff con-
judgment in favor of defendant. cedes, was required. Finally, as to the remaining

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune