The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

by Agati, Taryn

 

SC21051 - Health Body World Supply, Inc. v. Wang ("This appeal requires us to resolve two previously unexamined issues regarding the proper construction and operation of General Statutes § 52-572o, which is the statute governing comparative responsibility and actions for contribution under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52- 572m et seq. The plaintiffs, Health Body World Supply, Inc. (HBWS) and its insurance carrier, Landmark American Insurance Company (Landmark), brought this action for contribution against the defendant, Reed Wang, pursuant to § 52-572o (e) after paying $1.2 million to Judith Kissel in full satisfaction of the judgment in the underlying matter of Kissel v. Center for Women’s Health, P.C., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. FST-CV-12-6013562-S (January 3, 2019) (Kissel action), rev’d in part, 205 Conn. App. 394, 258 A.3d 677, cert. granted, 339 Conn. 916, 262 A.3d 139 (2021), and cert. granted, 339 Conn. 917, 262 A.3d 138 (2021) (appeals withdrawn January 11, 2022). The jury in the Kissel action assigned 80 percent of the responsibility for Kissel’s damages to HBWS and 20 percent of the responsibility to Wang. In the present action, HBWS seeks to recover from Wang his 20 percent share of the amount paid, including applicable interest and costs. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of HBWS.

On appeal, Wang renews his arguments, unsuccessful in the trial court, that the plaintiffs’ contribution action is foreclosed because Wang was not a party to the underlying product liability action and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of the comparative responsibility or contribution provisions of § 52-572o. In the alternative, Wang argues that the contribution action is untimely because it was brought more than one year after the judgment in the Kissel action became final. See General Statutes § 52-572o (e). We reject both arguments and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")