Costanzo v. Plainfield, 344 Conn. 86

Decedent drowned in a privately owned aboveground pool that lacked a self-closing/self-latching gate and a required pool alarm.
Malisa Costanzo (administratrix) sued the Town of Plainfield and two building officials under General Statutes § 52-557n(b)(8), alleging they issued a permit and failed to inspect despite notice of the pool and its noncompliance.
Defendants filed a notice of intent to seek apportionment against the property owners and an apportionment complaint against former tenants who built the pool, claiming their negligence contributed to the loss.
Costanzo objected, arguing her complaint alleged recklessness/intentional conduct (or otherwise non-negligent statutory claims), so apportionment is barred by § 52-572h(o).
Trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the apportionment pleadings; the Appellate Court reversed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Were the trial court's orders dismissing the apportionment pleadings final judgments permitting interlocutory review?	Orders disposed of defendants' entire apportionment pleadings and so are final under Practice Book §61-2.	Agreed they were final and appealable.	Yes. Dismissal of the entire apportionment complaint/notice constituted a final judgment.
2. Does § 52-572h(o) permit apportionment when municipal liability arises under § 52-557n(b)(8)? (i.e., is the § 52-557n(b)(8) claim a "cause of action created by statute based on negligence"?)	Costanzo: § 52-557n(b)(8) supplies either recklessness/intentional standards, so her complaint is non-negligent and apportionment is barred.	Defendants: § 52-557n(b)(8) contains two distinct exceptions—one negligence-based (notice + failure/inadequate inspection) and one reckless-disregard based—so apportionment is allowed as to negligence-based claims.	Held: § 52-557n(b)(8) creates two distinct causes—one negligence-based (first exception: notice + failure/inadequate/negligent inspection) and one reckless-disregard based (second exception). Because Costanzo alleged notice and failure to inspect, she pleaded a statutory cause of action based on negligence; apportionment under § 52-572h(o) is therefore permitted as to those negligence-based allegations.

Ugrin v. Cheshire, 307 Conn. 364 (2012) (§ 52-557n(b)(8) abrogates municipal immunity and creates a statutory cause of action in two enumerated inspection circumstances)
Williams v. Housing Authority, 327 Conn. 338 (2017) (second exception under § 52-557n(b)(8) requires reckless disregard, a standard more egregious than negligence)
Allard v. Liberty Oil Equipment Co., 253 Conn. 787 (2000) (legislative amendment to § 52-572h clarified apportionment applies only to negligence and barred apportionment for non-negligence statutory causes)
Bhinder v. Sun Co., 246 Conn. 223 (1998) (pre-amendment decision that had allowed apportionment to reckless/wanton actors; later legislatively limited)
Riccio v. Harbour Village Condominium Assn., Inc., 281 Conn. 160 (2007) (notice is a standard element in premises-negligence claims)
American National Fire Ins. Co. v. Schuss, 221 Conn. 768 (1992) (explains doctrinal distinction between intentional and negligent conduct)