Page 36 - CLT112320

36 ¦ NOVEMBER 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

finding the legislature did not intend to create Plaintiff brought a claim against defendant
a general exception to the waiver for sovereign alleging fault in a motor vehicle collision that
immunity where a joint tortfeasor has settled caused injury, and defendant sought to bring
a claim related to the injury. The court denied an apportionment complaint against the ap-
the motion to dismiss. portionment defendant (the defendant’s own
insurer, and uninsured motorist benefits pro-
vider), asserting that an unidentified third-
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE • CIVIL party driver struck defendant’s vehicle and
PROCEDURE caused the collision. Apportionment defen-

Plaintiff Motions to Amend do not dant moved to strike, and defendant object-
ed. Apportionment defendant argued that
Preserve Defendant’s Motions to the defendant did not name the third-party
Dismiss for Untimeliness driver in the complaint, and therefore could
not have served them, however the court
found there was no claim for affirmative re-
CASE: Philbrick v. Dueker lief and therefore privity was irrelevant. The
COURT: New London J.D. at New London court denied the apportionment defendant’s
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6041655S
COURT OPINION BY: Knox motion to strike.
DATE: October 26, 2020 • PAGES: 9
Plaintiff brought complaints against the de-
fendant and hospital for medical malpractice REAL ESTATE

and negligence, and provided opinion letters Court Granted Defendant’s Motion
along with her complaints. Defendants re- for Summary Judgment in Private
sponded, asking for an extension and request
to revise. Plaintiff objected, the objection was
sustained, and defendants filed motions to Nuisance Case

dismiss, arguing two of the counts had opin- CASE: Cammarota v. Sacred Heart Univ., Inc.
ion letters which were insufficient. Plaintiff COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
objected to the motion to dismiss, arguing the DOC. NO.: CV-19-6082929
motion was untimely, the defendants waived COURT OPINION BY: Cordani
the claim by filing requests to revise, and that DATE: October 20, 2020 • PAGES: 11
the opinion letters satisfied the general re-
quirements of §52-190a. Defendants argued Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors.
the letters failed to sufficiently set forth the Defendant operates a private university and
qualifications of the authors, however the leases property near plaintiff as student resi-
court found the defendants did not file the dence facilities. Plaintiff sued defendant for
motion to dismiss within thirty days of filing private nuisance, claiming that the use of
their appearance, and were therefore untimely. nearby property increases parking on nearby
The court found plaintiff ’s motions to amend streets, has increased car traffic, and has re-
did not save the timeliness requirement for de- sulted in the reduction of value of plaintiff ’s
fendant’s motions to dismiss. The court found property. Defendant moved for summary
defendants waived the motion to dismiss, and judgment and the court granted the motion.
denied the motion. In order to prevail on a claim of private nui-
sance, plaintiff must establish that defen-
dant’s conduct in using defendant’s property
unreasonably infringed on plaintiff ’s use and
PERSONAL INJURY • INSURANCE LAW enjoyment of plaintiff ’s property. The court

Court Denies Apportionment found plaintiff did not produce substantial
evidence that any interference with plain-
Defendant’s Motion to Strike where tiff ’s use and enjoyment of his property was
Third-Party Motorist Unnamed unreasonable, given that defendant com-
plied with zoning laws. Plaintiff also did not
establish that defendant’s conduct was the
CASE: Stackpole v. Selvaraj proximate cause of any interference; there
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford was no evidence of actual volume of traf-
DOC. NO.: CV-196044490 fic or the change in volume of traffic and
COURT OPINION BY: Povodator street parking over time. Lastly, plaintiff
DATE: October 29, 2020 • PAGES: 12

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune