Fortin v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance
139 Conn. App. 826
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Fortin, Kofkoff, Kofkoff, and Kofkoff Egg Farm sue North River Insurance (and Hartford) over insurance coverage for a third-party claim action involving Rytmans; Hartford initially defended but later disclaimed coverage, while North River did not participate in mediation or settlement.
- Plaintiffs allege Hartford had a duty to defend; North River had a duty to defend during Hartford-defensed periods.
- Plaintiffs settled the underlying Connecticut National Bank action with the Rytmans for $3.15 million after mediation in 2002; defendant did not participate in mediation.
- Plaintiffs claim North River breached the insurance contract by not funding defense or settlement contributions; Hartford also allegedly breached.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on counts related to Hartford’s duty and to determine coverage, then later granted defendant’s summary judgment on the reasonableness of the settlement after excluding expert Faulkner.
- Court denied plaintiffs’ postjudgment motions to reargue and to open/modify the judgment; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faulkner’s testimony should have been precluded. | Faulkner’s opinions were based on adequate facts. | Faulkner’s opinion lacked foundation and relied on insufficient data. | Faulkner’s testimony properly excluded. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion of Faulkner. | Without Faulkner, no proof that settlement was objectively reasonable. | Plaintiffs failed to prove settlement reasonable without expert testimony. | Summary judgment in defendant's favor proper. |
| Whether postjudgment motions were properly denied. | Late expert disclosures should be allowed to rebut the judgment. | Late disclosures would disrupt trial schedule and prejudice defendant. | Motions denied; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether DiPietro standard should apply retroactively. | DiPietro applies to preclude/summary-judgment review. | Retrospective application not warranted. | DiPietro standard applied; retroactive impact recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (Conn. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing preclusion with summary judgment; later overruled by Supreme Court in 2012)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 249 Conn. 36 (Conn. 1999) (objective standard for reasonableness of settlements)
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Railroad Co., 292 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2009) (expert testimony admissibility based on facts underlying opinion)
- Glaser v. Pullman & Co., LLC, 88 Conn. App. 615 (Conn. App. 2005) (fundamental basis for admissibility tied to factual basis of opinion)
- Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn. App. 869 (Conn. App. 2012) (reargument and scheduling-discretion considerations)
- Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155 (Conn. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of motions to open/modify judgment)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 306 Conn. 107 (Conn. 2012) ( governs review standard for preclusion with summary judgment; retroactivity issues discussed)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2012) (plenary review of summary-judgment determinations)