SC20922 - Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co. (“This certified appeal requires us to consider the relationship between General Statutes § 31-348,1 which governs the cancellation of workers’ compensation insurance policies, and traditional principles of contract law governing the cancellation of insurance policies. The plaintiff, Thomas Napolitano, doing business as Napolitano Roofing, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his breach of contract claim. Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co., 219 Conn. App. 110, 114, 137, 293 A.3d 915 (2023). The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the named defendant, Ace American Insurance Company, effectively cancelled the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation insurance by providing a cancellation notice that complied with § 31-348, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant, during the same time period, engaged in other conflicting conduct that the plaintiff contends rendered its notice of cancellation indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

AC46539 - Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC (“The self-represented plaintiff, Vincent P. Larobina, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, Altice Media Solutions, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that (1) his request for a declaratory judgment—to the extent it sought to invalidate the arbitration provision incorporated into his services agreement with the defendant on the basis that it contained an improper, so-called ‘‘infinite arbitration clause’’—was nonjusticiable, (2) the services agreement was lawfully formed, and (3) insofar as the arbitration provision applied to the parties’ underlying telephone service dispute, the provision was not unconscionable. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm in part the judgment of the trial court; we reverse in part the judgment to correct its form.”

“The form of the judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory ruling pertaining to the infinite arbitration clause is improper, the judgment is reversed only as to that claim and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing that claim; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20776 - Spillane v. Lamont ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars this declaratory judgment action challenging the legality of No. 21-6 of the 2021 Public Acts (P.A. 21-6). P.A. 21-6 prospectively eliminated the long-standing religious exemption to vaccination requirements as a condition of public and private school enrollment in General Statutes § 10-204a while maintaining the existing medical exemption. The plaintiffs, Keira Spillane and Anna Kehle, are parents of minor children who challenge the elimination of the religious exemption to the school vaccination requirement. They commenced the present action against the defendants, state and municipal officials charged with oversight of public health and education, seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that P.A. 21-6 violates the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and their children to the free exercise of religion, equal protection of the laws, and a free public education; see U.S. Const., amends. I and XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 3 and 20; Conn. Const., art. 8, § 1; and violates their rights under General Statutes § 52-571b. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were immune from suit, concluding that two recognized exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity—a "substantial claim" of a constitutional violation and a statutory waiver—had been satisfied. The defendants appealed from that decision to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court. See General Statutes § 51-199 (c); Practice Book § 65-1. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46455 - Walters v. Servidio ("In this land use dispute concerning whether the plaintiffs, Frederick J. Walters, Susan M. Walters, Michael S. Mason, and Michele A. Mason, have an easement over an approximately forty-four foot long by forty foot wide dirt section of a private road between 22 Ridge Street and 33 Cognewaugh Road in the Cos Cob section of Greenwich, known as the disputed area, the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Francesco G. Servidio and Rita Servidio. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that (1) they could not prevail on their claims of (a) express easement, (b) easement by implication, and (c) obstruction of a purported easement, and (2) the defendants prevailed on their counterclaims of (a) trespass, (b) (1) slander of title, and (b) (2) a violation of General Statutes § 47-41. We agree only with the plaintiffs' claim concerning slander of title and, accordingly, reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.

-----

The judgment is reversed only with respect to the counterclaim of slander of title and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on that counterclaim; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46383 - Mulvey v. Palo ("The plaintiff, Mona S. Mulvey, trustee of the Mona S. Mulvey Trust (trust), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Stefan Palo, Ema Palo, and Bank of America, N.A., on both her adverse possession claim and the defendants' quiet title counterclaim .On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that she failed to establish (1) her claim of adverse possession with respect to all areas of the property in question and (2) the boundaries of those areas with reasonable certainty. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45630 - Jefferson Solar, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection ("The plaintiff, Jefferson Solar, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. After the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department) declined to issue the plaintiff's requested declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e), the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175 (a).On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45974 - Vering v. Groton Long Point Assn., Inc. (Declaratory judgment; adverse possession; prescriptive easement; "The present case arises from a dispute between the plaintiffs, Peter B. Viering, Russell W. Viering, Jr., Christine Carr, Jane M. Battles, Thomas E. Kingston, Jr., and Bobbye Lou Sims, and the defendant, The Groton Long Point Association, Inc., concerning the plaintiffs' claimed right to make exclusive use of two strips of land denominated as rights-of-way on land owned by the defendant that abuts the plaintiffs' residential properties in the Groton Long Point section of Groton. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment rendered against them by the trial court on the granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant and the denial of the plaintiffs' own motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in its summary judgment rulings by (1) failing to consider whether access easements over the two rights-of-way had been granted to them by deed, and thereby conferred on them the right to use such rights-of-way to the exclusion of all others, and failing in so ruling to consider certain extrinsic evidence allegedly relevant to that claim; (2) concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' claim that they had acquired the rights-of-way by adverse possession or, alternatively, that they had acquired prescriptive easements over the rights-of-way; and (3) failing to address their claim that the defendant had abandoned the rights-of-way. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45623 - Williams v. Green Power Ventures, LLC ("The plaintiffs, Davidson D. Williams and Barbara R. Williams, appeal from the judgment of the trial court on their complaint against the defendants, Green Power Ventures, LLC (Green Power), 141 Anchorage, LLC, Edward Stern and Amy Stern (Sterns), and Keith J. Manca Building Company, LLC (Manca Building), and on the counterclaim filed by Green Power and 141 Anchorage, LLC. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for trespass and nuisance arising out of the defendants' alleged interference with the plaintiffs' use of a right-of-way easement over Green Power's property, which abuts 141 Anchorage, LLC's property. In their counterclaim, Green Power and 141 Anchorage, LLC, sought a declaratory judgment defining the permissible uses of the easement. In resolving the parties' competing claims, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' easement is limited to foot passage only, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief or attorney's fees, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to $500 as 'token damages' on their nuisance claim.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that their easement is limited to foot passage only, (2) found that the fence and gate that the defendants placed across the right-of-way did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' use of the easement, (3) found that the defendants did not engage in brazen and wanton conduct in connection with the planning, permitting, and development of their project that interferes with the plaintiffs' use of the easement, and (4) failed to consider evidence that the defendants are altering the location and dimensions of the easement. We agree with the plaintiffs' first claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20723 - State v. Avoletta ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether No. 17-4, § 1, of the 2017 Special Acts (S.A. 17-4) is an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution. The defendants, Joanne Avoletta, Peter Avoletta, and Matthew Avoletta, appeal, upon our grant of their petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut. See State v. Avoletta, 212 Conn. App. 309, 312, 339, 275 A.3d 716 (2022). On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that S.A. 17-4, pursuant to which the General Assembly extended the time limitation under General Statutes § 4-148 for the defendants to bring their claim against the state for injuries arising from poor indoor air quality at certain public schools, constitutes an unconstitutional public emolument because it does not serve a legitimate public purpose. We disagree with the defendants and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45114 - Fitzgerald v. Bridgeport (“The plaintiffs, Brian Fitzgerald, Steven Lougal, and Roderick G. Porter, captains in the Bridgeport Police Department (police department), and Anthony S. Armeno, deputy chief of the police department, commenced this action against the city of Bridgeport (city) and five other defendants, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the defendants failed to follow the civil service provisions of the Bridgeport City Charter (city charter) in appointing Captain Rebeca Garcia to the position of assistant police chief of the police department. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and declared that the city, Mayor Joseph Ganim, and Chief of Police A.J. Perez failed to adhere to the city charter and rules of the Bridgeport Civil Service Commission (commission) when appointing Garcia to the assistant police chief position on December 18, 2019. The court declined to grant the plaintiffs any injunctive relief.

On appeal, the defendants claim, among other things, that the court erred in concluding that David J. Dunn, the city’s personnel director, had not conducted a ‘‘proper noncompetitive examination’’ pursuant to § 211 of the city charter before Garcia was appointed to the assistant police chief position. After oral arguments in this appeal, however, Garcia ceased serving in the assistant police chief position due to her retirement from the police department. In light of this development, the defendants now claim that the appeal is moot and that vacatur of the trial court’s judgment is warranted. We agree with the defendants, dismiss the appeal as moot, and vacate the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20755 - Cerame v. Lamont (“The sole issue in this case, which comes to us on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; see General Statutes § 51-199b (d); is whether the speech alleged in the complaint of the plaintiff, Mario Cerame, comes within the scope of the phrase ‘by his advertisement,’ as used in General Statutes § 53-37. Because the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any speech constituting an ‘advertisement,’ we conclude that § 53-37 does not apply.”)

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44514 - Pascarella v. Silver ("This case concerns the proper application of the doctrine of res judicata. In their one count complaint, the plaintiffs, Henry Pascarella and Riversedge Partners, predicated their declaratory judgment action against the defendant R.S. Silver Enterprises, Inc., entirely on that doctrine of preclusion. Following a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court concluded that res judicata did not apply under the facts of this case. The plaintiffs now challenge the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20617 - Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak ("This case comes to us for the second time following lengthy litigation of a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiffs, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, against the defendant Jeffrey S. Pasiak. The action concerned whether the plaintiffs were obligated to indemnify the defendant, a business owner, under a personal umbrella insurance policy for liability arising from his false imprisonment of his company's employee at her workplace.

....

"The trial court properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard at the trial de novo to determine the factual question of whether the plaintiffs established that the business pursuits exclusion of the umbrella insurance policy barred coverage. The defendant's argument to the contrary conflates the legal standard for construction of a policy exclusion and the burden of proof to be applied in a declaratory judgment action to determine whether, as a factual matter, a policy exclusion applies.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44707 - Davis v. Property Owners Association of Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. ("In this property dispute action, the plaintiffs, Kirk B. Davis and Elyssa J. Davis, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Property Owners Association of Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. (association). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that the doctrine of res judicata barred the present action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC4417, AC44597 - Levco Tech, Inc. v. Kelly ("In this dispute among family members over control of the family business, the defendants, Sally Levene (Sally), both individually and as executrix of the estate of Martin Levene (Martin), and Edward Levene (Edward), bring these consolidated appeals from the judgment of the trial court determining that the defendants Robert Levene (Robert), Jeffrey Levene (Jeffrey), and Dorothy Kelly (Dot) owned the majority of the outstanding shares of common stock of the plaintiff, Levco Tech, Inc. (Levco). On appeal, Sally and Edward claim that the court improperly determined that (1) Dot had not placed her ten shares of Levco stock in an irrevocable trust and (2) the issuance of twelve shares of Levco stock to Edward was invalid. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44380 - Reiner v. Reiner (Declaratory judgment; contract interpretation; interest; settlement agreement; "In this declaratory judgment action, the defendant Michael D. Reiner appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff Jeffrey A. Reiner. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that the term 'interest,' as used in the buyout provisions of the parties' settlement agreement (agreement), meant 'equitable interest' and, thus, that the buyout amount for the defendant's interests in certain parcels of real property is equal to his percentage interest in each property multiplied by the difference of the fair market value of the property minus any outstanding mortgage debt. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44330 - Highland Street Associates v. Commissioner of Transportation ("In this declaratory judgment action, the defendants, the Commissioner of Transportation (commissioner) and the Department of Transportation (department), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Highland Street Associates (Highland Street) and Barrett Outdoor Communications, Inc. (Barret Outdoor). On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in concluding that the replacement of a billboard's existing trestle support structure with a monopole constituted maintenance and repair under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (act), 23 U.S.C. § 131 et seq., and General Statutes § 13a-123. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43851 - State v. Avoletta (Free public education in a safe setting; subject matter jurisdiction; “The defendants appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the state and from the judgment of dismissal of their counterclaim. As to the summary judgment, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the special act authorizing their first claim to proceed before the Claims Commissioner (commissioner) constituted an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution, and the General Assembly did not automatically waive the state’s sovereign immunity as to the defendants’ second claim by remanding their claim to the commissioner. As to the dismissal of the counterclaim, the defendants claim that the court erred in determining that their counterclaim was barred by sovereign immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20586 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn ("The question in this case is whether the plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), can use a plea of nolo contendere entered by the named defendant, Donte Tenn, to trigger a criminal acts exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy governed by Connecticut law. Allstate commenced the present action against Tenn and another defendant, Tailan Moscaritolo, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking a judgment declaring that it has no contractual duty either to defend or to indemnify Tenn in a civil action brought against Tenn by Moscaritolo in Connecticut Superior Court. Allstate subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action, arguing that Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere relieved it of its duty both to defend and to indemnify him as a matter of law. The parties agreed that a ruling on Allstate’s motion with respect to indemnification would be premature, and, as a result, the District Court denied Allstate’s motion with respect to that issue without prejudice. The only remaining question, which the District Court, in turn, certified to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d) and Practice Book § 82-1, is whether Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere relieved Allstate of its duty to defend by triggering the policy’s criminal acts exclusion as a matter of law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere is inadmissible to prove the occurrence of a criminal act and, therefore, cannot be used to trigger the policy’s criminal acts exclusion.")

• SC20586 Concurrence & Dissent - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43888 - Wright v. Dzurenda ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ian Wright, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, dismissing count four of his complaint, brought against the defendant Bonnie Hakins, a counselor for the Department of Correction (department), in her individual capacity, on the ground that the plaintiff's action is barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in determining that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) in considering the defendant's special defense that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because the defendant had waived that special defense. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions