Advance Release Opinions – September 15

Connecticut Appellate Court

Family Law

Fuller v. Baldino – Man sought visitation with a child of a woman with whom he had been in a relationship for some time. Trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that although there was no dispute that man had a parent-like relationship with child, man had failed to plead or prove that the child would suffer any real or substantial harm other than emotional harm that stems from denial of visitation itself.

Franchise Law

Aldin Associates Limited Partnership v. Hess Corporation – Franchisee claimed that franchisor improperly charged too high a wholesale price for gas, which stifled franchisee’s ability to compete. Trial court denied trial by jury based on written jury waivers and found for franchisor, concluding that franchisee had failed to prove damages with sufficient certainty. Appellate Court affirmed the jury trial waiver but reversed on the damages issue.

Insurance

Amica Mutual Insurance Company v. Piquette – Declaratory judgment action about the scope of an insurance policy. Trial court granted summary judgment for insurer. Appellate Court framed the issue on appeal as “whether, under the terms of an automobile insurance contract providing coverage for bodily injury, a loss of consortium claim is entitled to a separate per person liability limitation from the principal bodily injury claim of another person from which the loss of consortium claim arises.” Appellate Court concluded that the policy language in Izzo was substantially similar so Izzo applies and Izzo says there is only one limit for the bodily injury and the loss of consortium.

Landlord-Tenant

Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins – Trial court dismissed summary process action against Section 8 tenant because the pretermination notice was defective under federal and state law in that it specified an incorrect cure amount to avoid termination of the tenancy and included non-rent charges in the total past due rental obligation.  Appellate Court reversed, noting that only federal law applied to determining the sufficiency of the notice and the notice complied with federal law.

Medical Malpractice

Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth and Women’s Center – Defense verdict. Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the threshold interrogatory, which the jury answered in the negative, was confusing and overly restrictive given the allegations in the complaint and the proof elicited at trial.  Appellate Court essentially rejected each of those claims and affirmed.

Personal Injury

Gostyla v. Chambers – Car accident. Defense verdict. Plaintiff appealed because trial court permitted defense’s biomechanical expert to offer an opinion on causation, which was beyond his expertise. Appellate Court agreed that trial court improperly admitted the causation testimony but affirmed because plaintiff failed to provide an adequate record to determine whether the error affected the outcome of the trial.

Zoning

St. Joseph’s High School, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumbull – High school wanted to install lights on its football field. P&Z denied special application because of a deadlock (2 votes in favor, 2 votes against, 1 abstention). High school appealed to Superior Court. Superior Court sustained the appeal, finding that the application satisfied the known and definite standards in the regulation, and could not be trumped by the general standard of “detrimental to the character of a residential district. The Appellate Court reversed. After a lengthy discussion, the Appellate Court concluded that “[u]nder Connecticut law, a zoning commission may deny a special permit application due to noncompliance with general standards contained in the zoning regulations.” So, Superior Court had applied an improper legal standard. The Appellate Court then concluded that, using the proper standard, there was substantial evidence in the record to support a denial. Said another way, there was substantial evidence that the high school had not met its burden of demonstrating that the lights would not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood.