Ferraro v. Ridgefield European Motors, Inc.
313 Conn. 735
| Conn. | 2014Background
- Ferraro, claimant, allegedly sustained carpal tunnel and neck injuries while employed by Ridgefield European Motors (Ridgefield).
- AmGuard insured Ridgefield; AmGuard agreed to apportionment liability against Republic-Franklin and American Alternative after a voluntary agreement.
- American Alternative settled its apportionment; Republic-Franklin delayed its formal liability acceptance until near the end of hearings.
- Commissioner held multiple formal hearings (2009–2010) to determine apportionment liability and whether interest under §31-299b was due.
- AmGuard reimbursed, Republic-Franklin acknowledged its share; commissioner ordered Republic-Franklin to pay interest to AmGuard under §31-299b.
- Board affirmed; Republic-Franklin appealed, challenging (a) statutory prerequisites for interest and (b) timeliness of the interest award; court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §31-299b permits interest against a prior insurer after apportionment is submitted post-hearings | Republic-Franklin argues no interest where agreement moots findings | AmGuard contends statute requires findings on the record after hearings and authorizes interest | Yes; statute permits interest when apportionment findings are made on the hearing record after formal proceedings |
| Whether the interest award was made within a reasonable period of time under §31-299b | Republic-Franklin preserved this claim late and thus argues timeliness should be reviewed | AmGuard and commissioner considered the timing within statutory framework | Not reviewable for preservation; court declines to review the timeliness issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating Co., 260 Conn. 21 (2002) (commissioner’s authority to adjudicate when settlements occur within proceedings)
- Chambers v. Electric Boat Corp., 283 Conn. 840 (2007) (deference to agency interpretation; statutory construction guidance)
- Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 299 Conn. 346 (2010) (standard of review in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (preservation and review of administrative claims on appeal)
- Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc., 285 Conn. 716 (2008) (preservation and review principles in administrative proceedings)
- Secretary of the Office of Policy & Management v. Employees’ Review Board, 267 Conn. 255 (2004) (plenary statutory interpretation against prior time-tested interpretation)