207 Conn.App. 525
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Berkley Net Underwriters (servicing agent for Carolina Casualty) sued CT Solid Surface to collect unpaid insurance premiums; CT Solid Surface filed counterclaims against Berkley.
- The trial court granted motions to dismiss in the prior action "by agreement of the parties." No mutual releases or formal settlement documents were executed or filed.
- Carolina Casualty later sued CT Solid Surface; the trial court allowed CT Solid Surface to cite in Attorney Howard Kantrovitz (who had represented Berkley) as a third-party defendant.
- CT Solid Surface asserted a vexatious litigation cross claim against Kantrovitz, alleging the Berkley suit was unnecessary and improperly brought.
- Kantrovitz moved for summary judgment, relying on CT Solid Surface’s admissions (including that the parties agreed to mutual dismissals) and a hearing transcript in which counsel said both motions could be granted by agreement. CT Solid Surface never sought to withdraw those admissions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Kantrovitz, holding the parties exchanged consideration for the dismissal (a negotiated settlement), so the prior action did not terminate in CT Solid Surface’s favor. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior action terminated in CT Solid Surface’s favor for vexatious litigation purposes | The dismissal was not a negotiated settlement because no releases or formal settlement were executed; therefore termination favored CT Solid Surface or at least a factual dispute exists | Parties agreed to mutual dismissals in exchange for one another’s dismissal; that exchange is a settlement and not a favorable termination | No — the exchange of promises constituted consideration/settlement; not a favorable termination; summary judgment for Kantrovitz affirmed |
| Whether an exchange of promises/consideration is relevant to the favorable termination requirement | Promises without executed documents do not prove a settlement; factual dispute remains | An exchange of promises is sufficient consideration and can constitute a negotiated settlement | Exchange of promises is legally sufficient consideration; relevant and dispositive |
| Whether CT Solid Surface’s admissions and the hearing transcript preclude a factual dispute | The admissions and transcript do not conclusively prove settlement; court should not resolve factual disputes on summary judgment | Admissions are conclusive under Practice Book; CT Solid Surface never moved to withdraw them, so they establish the exchange | Admissions were binding; CT Solid Surface failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. Levy, 464 A.2d 52 (1983) (a negotiated settlement does not constitute a termination in the plaintiff’s favor for vexatious litigation)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 597 A.2d 807 (1991) (favorable termination requirement permits relief where underlying proceeding was abandoned or withdrawn without consideration)
- Bilbao v. Goodwin, 217 A.3d 977 (2019) (exchange of promises constitutes consideration)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 118 A.3d 158 (2015) (elements and proof standards for vexatious litigation and lack of probable cause)