Page 29 - CLT090720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 29

were met. Despite meeting the sales goals, plain- job’s general contractor promptly paid its sub-
tiff was not promoted. At 50 years old, he was contractors what they were owed. Subcontractor
prohibited from using defendant’s 401(k) ben- plaintiff alleged that it had not been paid, and
efit plan and noticed that older employees were claimed that defendant should therefore pay it
tasked with more work than younger employees. the insurance money. Defendant moved for sum-
Plaintiff sued and defendants filed a motion to mary judgment and the court granted the mo-
strike. The court granted the motion in part. The tion. The court found that defendant’s handling
court granted the motion to strike the counts al- of this matter alone was not enough to expose it
leging negligent infliction of emotional distress to liability under the Connecticut Unfair Trade
and interference with prospective business expec- Practices Act; plaintiff would have to claim that
tancy. The court first denied the defendants’ mo- defendant’s wrongdoing in this case was part of
tion as to numerous counts, including negligent a pattern or practice of wrongdoing as opposed
and reckless supervision. For that claim, plaintiff to just an isolated incident. The court noted that
alleged that one of defendant’s employees exhib- there had to be something more: evidence of a
ited hostile behavior towards plaintiff, including wrong amounting to bad faith, not just trying
physical threats, and as a result of the negligent to save money by wrongly disputing whether the
supervision of that employee, plaintiff suffered prerequisites for payment were met. The court
physical and emotional pain and distress. The held that no reasonable fact finder could find
court reasoned that plaintiff was seeking recov- that defendant’s payment denial was connected
ery for emotional injuries that were not compen- to some scheme that went beyond incompetently
sable under the Workers Compensation Act, and failing to pay what was due.
therefore denied defendants’ motion to strike this
count. Turning to the claim of negligent inflic-
tion of emotional distress, the court found that INSURANCE LAW •
the plaintiff did not provide any facts regarding CONTRACTS • EXPERT WITNESSES
the events and circumstances surrounding his ter-
mination. Plaintiff merely claimed that he was Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to
fired for cause due to retaliatory reasons and as Strike Expert’s Report in Insurance
an effort to interfere with his ability to find a new Litigation
job. The court found that without more, it was
not sufficient and granted defendants’ motion as
to that count. The court also granted defendants’ CASE: Gerald Metals, LLC v. Certain Underwriters
motion as to interference with prospective eco- COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
nomic advantage. The court stated that plain- DOC. NO.: CV-17-6031032
tiff did not allege that there was a third party to COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
hold liable for interfering with the contractual DATE: August 17, 2020 • PAGES: 11
relationship between the parties. Specifically, the
court noted that plaintiff did not allege a spe- Plaintiffs sued defendant for breach of contract
cific business relationship that defendant actually and breach of the covenant of good faith and
interfered with. fair dealing. Plaintiff claimed that defendant in-
surer improperly denied the existence of coverage
under an endorsement in the policy, an all-risk
marine cargo insurance policy, issued by defen-
INSURANCE LAW dant. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that defen-
dant failed to pay plaintiff’s claim for insurance
Court Granted Defendant’s Motion coverage arising from a claimed covered loss of
25,500 tons of alumina from a Chinese ware-
for Summary Judgment in CUTPA Suit, house. Defendant moved for partial summary
Finding There Was No Bad Faith judgment as to the claim for the breach of the
covenant of good faith, and asked the court to
CASE: Maverick Constr. Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. disregard plaintiff’s report prepared by Marvin
Ins. Co. Margolies, a marine insurance adjustment expert,
COURT: Hartford J.D., Complex Litigation Docket who opined that defendant did not comport with
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6112344 marine insurance adjustment standards. The
COURT OPINION BY: Moukawsher court declined to strike Margolies’ report. Defen-
DATE: August 17, 2020 • PAGES: 6
The case involved a construction job at a public dant argued that the bases for the opinions in the
sewage plant. Defendant agreed to insure that the report were sufficiently inadequate to the extent

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune