Advance Release Opinions – Supreme Court – August 3

Reviews of Connecticut Supreme Court decisions about divorce, employment, and underinsured motorist benefits.

Divorce

Shirley P. v. Norman P. – Plaintiff sought a divorce after accusing defendant of sexually assaulting her. While the action was pending, defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses arising from the alleged assault. Though those convictions were on appeal, the matrimonial court gave them preclusive effect under collateral estoppel, and entered a property division award that heavily favored plaintiff. Defendant appealed the property award, claiming that the convictions were not preclusive because they were still on appeal. While the appeal of the property award was pending, the Appellate Court reversed the convictions and the Supreme Court affirmed. Supreme Court then reversed the property award, finding that under United States Supreme Court precedent, a second judgment based on the preclusive effect of a first judgment must be reversed if the first judgment is reversed.

Employment

Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities – Former female employee filed a claim with CHRO alleging that Trinity unlawfully terminated her employment on the basis of  her sex, marital status, and pregnancy. Trinity moved to dismiss, claiming that it was immune from suit under CGS § 52-571b, which bars the state from burdening any religious belief. CHRO denied the motion. Trinity appealed to Superior Court, re-asserting its immunity argument and adding that its immunity permitted an interlocutory appeal of what would otherwise be a nonfinal order of the CHRO. Superior Court disagreed, finding that the statute provided a special defense, not immunity from suit. Supreme Court affirmed for the same reason.

Underinsured Motorist Benefits

Tannone v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company – This is a good one. Two pedestrians hit by an authorized driver of a rental car. Driver and lessee were underinsured. Rental agency was self-insured. Pedestrians made an underinsured claim on their policy. Amica denied it because the policy, as permitted by state agency regulation, excluded underinsured benefits when the owner of the car is self-insured. The Supreme Court in 1999 had concluded that the regulation was not against public policy because self-insureds had to prove their ability to pay judgments when liable, making underinsurance unnecessary. In other words, the exclusion was valid because a “self-insured” could not be underinsured. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that Congress had passed the Graves Amendment, which makes rental car companies immune from vicarious liability for injuries caused by their underinsured lessees. So, since the injured party no longer can recover from a self-insured car rental agency, the exclusion is invalid because it leaves the injured party without a remedy. Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant and remanded for further proceedings.