Page 27 - CLT122120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 27

of any property that must be restored, repaired to appear or to obtain new counsel. Plaintiffs ap-
or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly pealed the dismissal, arguing that under Practice
performed,” and that here the “particular part” Book §14-3 dismissal was inappropriate where
was the entire house. Plaintiff moved for sum- there were other alternative sanctions available.
mary judgment, which the trial court denied, and The court, reviewing for abuse of discretion,
plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff argued the trial court found the trial court had properly exercised their
conflated the duty to defend with the duty to in- discretion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and
demnify, and that under a correct interpretation did not abuse such discretion. The court found
of the policy, the insurer had a duty to defend that, in light of the repeated efforts to accommo-
New Beginnings separate from the exclusions. date the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ flagrant pattern
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling of missing clearly established deadlines, dismiss-
that summary judgment was inappropriate, and al was proportional. The court affirmed the trial
that the insurer was not relieved of their duty to court’s decision.

defend under the policy. The court reversed the
decision of the trial court and remanded for fur- SUPERIOR COURT
ther proceedings.

APPELLATE COURT CIVIL PROCEDURE • PERSONAL INJURY

DAMAGES • CIVIL PROCEDURE New York-Based Bicycle Club Was
Subject to Connecticut Jurisdiction
For Injury Suffered in Club-Sponsored
Court Affirms Dismissal for Failure to Event in Connecticut
Prosecute
CASE: Ashinsky v. Westchester Cycle Club, Inc.
CASE: Vaccaro v. Loscalzo COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court DOC. NO.: CV20-6046769
DOC. NO.: AC 42951 COURT OPINION BY: Genuario
COURT OPINION BY: Bright DATE: December 01, 2020 • PAGES: 19
DATE: December 08, 2020 • PAGES: 16
An out-of-state organization was subject to
Plaintiffs, the living wife of the decedent and rep- Connecticut jurisdiction over a lawsuit aris-
resentatives of decedent’s estate, brought wrong- ing from an organization-sponsored event in
ful death and loss of consortium complaints Connecticut, where the suit was authorized by
against the defendants, Yale Medical Group and Connecticut’s long arm statute, and exercise
Yale New Haven Hospital, and a claim for reim- of jurisdiction would not violate the organiza-
bursement for any liability relating to the dece- tion’s constitutional right to due process. The
dent’s treatment and death after suffering a stroke. court denied a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
The trial court issued a scheduling order making Deena Ashinsky was a member of defendant
clear deadlines, which passed without the plain- Westchester Cycle Club, an organization based
tiffs serving any discovery, taking depositions, in New York. Ashinksy participated in a club-
disclosing experts, or responding to discovery re- sponsored group ride in Connecticut. Ashinsky
quests. As a result of continued and ongoing fail- was injured when she fell after striking a speed
ure of the plaintiffs to adequately prosecute the bump, after the group leader had deviated from
claim, defendants moved for dismissal for lack of the preplanned route and led the group onto pri-
due diligence. At oral hearing, plaintiff’s coun- vate roads. Ashinsky filed a personal injury suit
sel informed the court the lack of diligence was in a Connecticut court. The club moved to dis-
the fault of counsel and not the plaintiffs, and miss, contending the Connecticut court lacked
that he was working with plaintiffs to secure new personal jurisdiction over the club. The court
counsel, however no new counsel ever appeared. denied the motion. First, the court found that
After four months, the court eventually granted the state’s long arm statute reached the club.
defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to pros- The club transacted business in the state and,
ecute, reasoning that the action had commenced as it conceded, it had not obtained a certificate
almost three years before, and that the case had of authority to do so. Further, Ashinsky’s cause
barely advanced, and plaintiffs continually failed of action arose out of the club’s transaction of

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune