Page 29 - CLT122120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 29

Plaintiffs were employees of the defendant finding, to the contrary, that §52-555b ex-
University of Connecticut Health Center. In pressly declines to limit the scope of recover-
2018, as a result of a phishing attack, hackers able damages. Rather, that section states that
were able to gain access to confidential data a spouse’s claim for loss of consortium “may
on Heath Center employees, including the ex- include, without limitation, claims for damages
posure of personally identifiable information. with respect to loss of the society of, affection
Plaintiffs brought claims of negligence, breach of, moral support provided by, services provid-
of contract, invasion of privacy, and viola- ed by, sexual relations with or companionship
tions of the Personal Data Act for defendants’ of the other spouse.” The court accordingly
failure to adopt adequate cybersecurity safe- denied defendants’ motion to strike.
guards and failure to detect the data breach in
a reasonable time. Defendants moved to dis-
miss, arguing sovereign immunity barred the DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS •
complaints, however plaintiffs argued that the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PDA included a statutory waiver of sovereign Court Affirms Department of
immunity. The defendants argued the PDA
did not apply to the defendants because they
are not an “agency” as defined in the PDA, Consumer Protection’s Finding
but rather just “constituent units.” Plaintiffs on Beer Distributor’s Exclusivity
agreed the defendants constituted “constitu- Agreement
ent units,” but argued that such units were in-
cluded in “agency.” The court found the words CASE: Polish Folklore Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Consumer Prot.,
“constituent units” are not expressly included Liquor Control Division
in the definition of “agency” within the PDA, COURT: New Britain J.D.
and in strictly construing the language, the DOC. NO.: CV-20-6056990
court found the PDA does not apply to “con- COURT OPINION BY: Klau
stituent units.” As such, the court found the DATE: November 24, 2020 • PAGES: 11
statutory waiver in the PDA did not apply to
the defendants, and granted dismissal on the Defendant Amtec obtained the exclusive right
grounds of sovereign immunity. to sell Zubr beer in Connecticut through a 1998
arrangement with the Polish brewer. The brew-
ery was bought out in 2003 and, in 2005 the new
owner stopped selling Zubr in the U.S. and de-
DAMAGES clined to fill orders to Amtec. In 2018, plaintiff

began selling Zubr in Connecticut through a
Damages Sought by Plaintiff for Loss different distributor, and Amtec successfully pe-
of Consortium Are Recoverable Under titioned the defendant to have plaintiff stop all
State Law sales of Zubr. Plaintiff then petitioned the defen-
dant Liquor Control Commission for a declara-
tory ruling that it had exclusive right to distribute
CASE: Cadavid v. Stamford Health, Inc. Zubr beer in Connecticut. Plaintiff argued that
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford the two products were different and that there
DOC. NO.: CV20-6046034 were just and sufficient grounds to terminate
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich Amtec’s exclusive distributorship. The defen-
DATE: November 30, 2020 • PAGES: 7
The court denied defendants’ motion to strike, dant denied the petition, instead finding Amtec
finding that the damages sought by plaintiff still had exclusivity to sell Zubr beer, and plain-
in her claims for loss of consortium did not tiff appealed the decision. The plaintiff repeated
exceed the scope of damages permitted by the arguments made to the defendant, and the
statute. Following the death of Felix Mejia, court found neither persuasive. The court found
plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against no abuse in discretion when the defendant found
defendants. She also asserted claims for loss the recipes, trade names, and logos were com-
of consortium. Defendants moved to strike mon when determining the two beers were sub-
the loss of consortium claims, arguing that the stantially the same product. The court also found
claims improperly sought damages for severe plaintiff had no standing to ask the defendant
emotional distress, anguish, and anxiety, which to terminate the exclusivity agreement made be-
damages they contended are not recoverable tween Amtec and the brewer. The court affirmed
under C.G.S. §52-555b. The court disagreed, defendant’s decision.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune