Representative Cases

Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 (1989) is a premises rape case in which the actual rapist was never apprehended and the property owner was absolved of civil responsibility on the basis of the lack of foreseeability and lack of proximate cause. Further, any violation of the health code ordinance concerning natural growth was deemed not negligence per se since the hazard subject to this statute was only a condition, and not a cause, of the Plaintiff's injuries.

Stanley v. Lincoln, 75 Conn.App. 781 (2003) is a tree cutting case. Plaintiff claimed the neighbors intentionally cut down trees on her property without permission. The jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded the cord wood value of the cut trees. The court thereafter awarded Plaintiff treble damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-560. The plaintiff appealed claiming error regarding preclusion of evidence of replacement value. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the proper measure of damages was either diminution of value of the property after the alleged cutting or the value of the cut trees as timber or lumber. Replacement value was not the proper measure of damages.

Middlesex Insurance Company v. Quinn, 225 Conn. 257 (1993) upheld policy language prohibiting resident relatives who own cars from making UM claims against the policies of family members they live with. Quinn, while driving a car he owned, made an underinsured motorist claim against his father’s policy with whom he resided. The policy defined an insured in part as, "…a member of the family who doesn’t own a car …" In rejecting Quinn’s arguments that the definition was an impermissible exclusion from coverage not authorized by statute or regulation, the Supreme Court held that insurers are required to extend UM coverage to resident relatives only when they are injured while occupying a car owned by the named insured as long as the policy contains such limiting language.

Middlesex Insurance Company v. Castellano, 225 Conn. 339 (1993) held that a policy definition of an insured that limited coverage to resident relatives who do not own cars did not violate Connecticut public policy or its underinsured motorist laws. Castellano was injured while a passenger on a non-owned motorcycle and sought to make an underinsured motorist claim against his father’s policy with whom he lived. The court held that neither law nor public policy required an insurer to extend UIM coverage to resident relatives who own cars even the injury occurred while occupying a non-owned vehicle.

Savoie v. Prudential Insurance Company, 271 Conn. 932 (2004) held that an insurer, who is not being sued as a surrogate for its insured, is entitled to a set off against underinsured motorist coverage for all payments made by those parties responsible for the accident irrespective of the apportionment of liability between the responsible parties. Plaintiff settled claims against two tortfeasors for $400,000 then claimed UIM benefits against a policy on which the plaintiff’s decedent was a named insured seeking to recover $150,000 of a total $300,000 in coverage. Liability between the tortfeasors was apportioned at 50% each and the plaintiff claimed that under apportionment principles, the defendant could could only set off $150,000 which represented the policy limit of one tortfeasor. The court found that the case was one involving an issue of set-offs and not apportionment and that under the policy terms, the defendant was entitled to a set off for all amounts paid by responsible parties regardless of the liability split.

Middlesex Insurance Company v. Rady, 34 Conn.App. 679 (1994), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 908 ( 1994), the Court held that a resident relative of the named insured who was killed while occupying a non-owned vehicle was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under a policy definition that excluded coverage for resident relatives who own cars even in light of a statute which became effective after Quinn and Castellano which mandated that liability coverage extend to all resident relatives.

Cora Sokolowski v. Medi Mart, Inc., 24 Conn.App. 276 (1990) is a plaintiff’s premises liability case. The plaintiff, Cora Sokolowski, sustained a fall in the defendant’s store when she slipped on spilled aftershave. The defendant denied liability, claiming it had no notice of the spill. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed based on numerous evidentiary issues, and the failure of the Trial Court to grant its motion for directed verdict. The Appellate Court confirmed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Andrew Dawson, et al. v. David Farr, et al., 227 Conn. 780, 632 A.2d 41 (1993) is a case wherein a baseball player and local team sought a temporary junction against The American Legion to prevent The American Legion from enforcing its eligibility rules and authority to declare of forfeiture of the team’s games. After trial, plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction was granted. An appeal was taken by The American Legion to enforce its interpretation of the geographic player eligibility rules and other provisions of its regulations. The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut overruled the lower Court’s denial of the defendants’ Counterclaim and ordered the matter reversed and remanded. Ultimately, the ability of The American Legion to enforce its player eligibility rules was sustained.

Lawrence Puchalsky v. Theodore Rappahahn et al., 63 Conn.App. 72, 774 A.2d 1029 (2001) was a case where the defendant, while on his way to enter the company premises, was driving through the picket line at the entrance when he was alleged to have struck the assistant steward of the Union with his automobile. The case was tried to a jury and evidence was introduced that the steward had in fact, attacked the vehicle which Rappahahn was operating, and wrenched the car’s mirror off the vehicle, falling in the ground in the process. A defendant’s verdict was returned by the jury and the plaintiff appealed on a variety or interesting legal issues. The verdict for the defendant was sustained by the Appellate Court.

Constance Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Company, Inc. and Granville Downs et al. v. H.N.S. Management Company Inc., 272 Conn. 81, 861 A.2d 1160 (2004) are consolidated cases wherein a bus driver and a passenger claimed injuries as a result of bus accidents and who sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from H.N.S. Management Company. After trial to the Court, the trial judge rejected the company’s claims that the actions against it were bared by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The defendant appealed and was heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court. On the basis of the briefs and arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that H.N.S. Management Company, under a variety of statutory provisions, was an arm of the State for the purpose of exclusion from the requirements that it provide uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The Trial Court findings were overruled, and the defendant prevailed.