Page 27 - CLT122820

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 28, 2020 ¦ 27

plaintiff appealed seeking attorneys’ fees, and APPELLATE COURT
the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s
decision. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that
the court should apply a rebuttable presump-
tion that, where the plaintiff has prevailed on a INSURANCE LAW

CUTPA violation, they should be awarded at- Trial Court’s Conclusion That Excess
torneys’ fees. The court declined to adopt such
a presumption based on the language “may Coverage Could Not Attach Was Based
award” in §42-110, however nonetheless found On Mistaken Findings Regarding
the trial court had abused their discretion in
failing to award attorneys’ fees in the case at Underlying Coverage Payments
bar. The court found the trial court found
“reckless indifference … and intentional and CASE: Continental Cas. Co. v. Rohr, Inc.
wanton violation of the [plaintiff ’s] rights” COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
when determining the CUTPA violation, and DOC. NO.: AC 41537
by their own words used “the same” reasoning COURT OPINION BY: Bear
in weighing the punitive damages and attor- DATE: December 15, 2020 • PAGES: 69
neys’ fees, and as such the court abused their
discretion in declining attorneys’ fees. The In coverage disputes involving issues relating
court reversed the decision of the appellate to whether certain umbrella and excess policies
and trial courts. issued by the plaintiff and defendant insurers
provided coverage for environmental property
damage remediation claims brought against
the named defendant, Rohr, Inc., the court re-
PERSONAL INJURY versed a judgment in part, holding that the trial
court erred in granting partial summary judg-
Court Affirms Trial Court’s Finding ment based on its mistaken conclusion that the
moving parties’ excess insurance policies could
that Statute of Limitations Applies for not attach. Rohr obtained umbrella and excess
Claims Arising out of Negligence insurance coverage from a number of insurers,
including Continental Casualty Company. Dis-
CASE: Doe #2 v. Rackliffe putes arose as to the rights of the parties under
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court certain insurance policies issued to the named
DOC. NO.: SC 20420 defendant by the plaintiffs and certain of the de-
COURT OPINION BY: Ecker fendants concerning underlying claims of envi-
DATE: December 15, 2020 • PAGES: 12
Plaintiffs were minor patients of Rackliffe, a ronmental contamination brought against Rohr.
pediatrician practicing in Connecticut in the Continental filed a declaratory judgment action.
1970s and 1980s. Each of the plaintiffs alleged Defendant Federal Insurance Co. filed a cross
that during their physical examinations, Rack- claim. Rohr filed a counterclaim and a cross
liffe sexually assaulted them, and brought claim. The trial court granted motions for par-
claims sounding in both sexual assault and tial summary judgment filed by Continental and
medical negligence, as well as infliction of motions for summary judgment filed by Feder-
emotional distress. The defendant moved for al. The court denied Rohr’s motion for partial
summary judgment on the negligence claims, summary judgment. Rohr appealed. Continental
alleging that the claims were time barred by cross appealed. The court affirmed in part and
General Statutes §52-584 because the actions reversed in part. The trial court erred in finding
were commenced more than three years after in favor of Continental after concluding that its
the act. The trial court granted summary excess policies could never attach. That conclu-
judgment, reasoning that the acts arose out of sion was based on a mistaken finding that under-
medical conduct, rather than sexual assault, lying policy coverage was based on individual,
and therefore were not entitled to the extend- consecutive annual periods. And, contrary to the
ed statute of limitations under §52-577d. The trial court’s finding, one of the primary-coverage
plaintiffs appealed, and the court agreed with policies based coverage on the amount origi-
the trial court that claims brought in negli- nally stated, without regard to how many times
gence are not subject to the extended statute coverage was continued, or how many premi-
of limitations under §52-577d. The court af- ums were paid. However, the court agreed with
firmed the trial court’s decision. the trial court that another of the carriers was

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune