Page 28 - CLT122820

28 ¦ DECEMBER 28, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

required to exhaust all of its primary coverage plaintiff could have recovered; here, it wasn’t
before the liability of its excess insurers could that plaintiff failed to name defendant as the
attach. That finding was consistent with appli- right defendant, but rather that she named a
cable California law. But the trial court erred in completely wrong person.
finding that necessary exhaustion of the primary
policies remained unsatisfied. Rohr received pay-
ment in amounts that exceeded the policy limits. CONTRACTS • CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Next, the court reversed the trial court’s grant Court Denied Defendants’ Special
of Rohr’s motion for summary judgment. Rohr Motion to Dismiss, Finding No Matter
had failed to exhaust its excess insurance cover-
age when it entered into settlement agreements.
Finally, the appellate court found that Continen- of Public Concern

tal could not prevail on its cross appeal, having CASE: Greenberg v. The Gunnery
already rejected similar arguments that Conti- COURT: Litchfield J.D. at Torrington
nental had raised on direct appeal with respect DOC. NO.: CV-20-6025157
to whether dollar amounts per occurrence limits COURT OPINION BY: Shaban
could be annualized. DATE: December 03, 2020 • PAGES: 11

Plaintiff applied to The Gunnery, an elite school
in Connecticut. At the time of his application,
SUPERIOR COURT defendants knew of plaintiff’s learning disabili-
ties. After undergoing an evaluation, plaintiff was
admitted as a student. Although he did well aca-
CIVIL PROCEDURE • PERSONAL INJURY demically, plaintiff had a number of disciplinary
infractions. After one incident where he directed
profane language towards his parents and a coach,
Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to plaintiff was expelled. Plaintiff sued, alleging that
Strike, Claiming That Plaintiff’s Action defendants breached their contract with him and
Under the “Wrong Defendant” Statute several other claims. Defendants filed a special
was Sufficient motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion.
Defendants argued that each of plaintiff’s counts
CASE: Rockwell v. Moran was based on defendants’ right of association in
COURT: Ansonia-Milford J.D. at Milford connection with a matter of public concern. Spe-
DOC. NO.: CV-20-5018799 cifically, this includes the right not to associate
COURT OPINION BY: Tyma with individuals and plaintiff’s expulsion was an
DATE: November 18, 2020 • PAGES: 5
exercise of that right. The court noted that for a
Plaintiff was driving her car when defendant, special motion to dismiss to be granted, defendant
who was driving on the same road in the opposite must assert a constitutionally protected right in
direction, crossed into plaintiff ’s lane. Plaintiff connection with a matter of public concern. Here,
swerved her car, hitting a curb and sustaining the issue of whether plaintiff was wrongfully ex-
injuries. Plaintiff originally brought the action pelled did not amount to an issue of health and
against another driver, but later learned that that safety that was of a public concern or involve the
was the wrong person. She withdrew that action community’s well-being. The court noted that it
and commenced this lawsuit against defendant. was closer to a private contractual matter.
Defendant filed a motion to strike, claiming that
plaintiff failed to state a claim under the wrong
defendant statute. The court denied the motion. CONTRACTS • INSURANCE LAW

This statute provides that as long as a plaintiff Defendant Breached Its Duty Under
files the action against the correct defendant
within the one year time limitation, the defen- a Contract by Failing to Repair Fire
dant cannot claim a statute of limitations vio- Damage at Its Own Expense
lation. The issue before the court was whether
plaintiff ’s withdrawal of the original action was CASE: Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.
a judgment within the meaning of the statute. COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
The court found it was. It distinguished the situ- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6105195
ation from where a plaintiff failed to name, in COURT OPINION BY: Peck
the original action, all defendants from which DATE: December 01, 2020 • PAGES: 21

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune