Gianetti v. Connecticut Newspapers Publishing Co.
136 Conn. App. 67
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Gianetti, a self-represented plaintiff, sued Connecticut Newspapers Publishing Company, Inc. (publisher of the Post) and reporters Tepfer and Brown for defamation and IIED.
- Articles at issue were June 20, 2004; July 9, 2004; and December 23, 2005, concerning Gianetti’s billing practices.
- Plaintiff’s prior related dispute against the minor patient’s parents involved a settlement and a finding of unfair trade practices against Gianetti.
- Plaintiff filed the current complaint on July 10, 2006; defendants moved for summary judgment on November 30, 2009/2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgments for all defendants, ruling time-bar defense, truth/substantial truth, and fair report privilege.
- Gianetti appealed, challenging statute of limitations, truth/privilege defenses, and claims of due process and jury trial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts are time-barred by the statute of limitations | Gianetti contends timely delivery saved by extension statute. | Post and Tepfer assert would-be outside the two-year window; service late. | Yes; claims barred by statute; service not timely under §52-593a. |
| Whether the saving statute (§52-593a) applies to extend the limitations period | Delivery timing saved the action within period; marshal receipt uncertain but within window. | No proof of timely receipt; saving statute not satisfied. | No; plaintiff failed to show timely delivery/receipt; §52-593a not satisfied. |
| Whether statements are protected by substantial truth and fair report privilege | Not all statements were true/substantially true; privilege should not apply. | Statements are true or substantially true; protected by fair report privilege. | Statements are true/substantially true or protected by fair report privilege. |
| Whether the December 23, 2005 article had any libelous statements | Article contained libelous statements about Gianetti. | Article did not contain libelous statements. | Brown's article had no libelous statements; count fails. |
| Whether the derivative emotional distress claim survives | Distress claim arises from libel claims; should proceed. | Derivative claim fails with libel claims. | Derivative claim fails; no independent basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 78 Conn.App. 235 (Conn. App. 2003) (limitations start and service issues control; similar fact pattern)
- Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn.Supp. 676 (Conn. Sup. 1976) (saving statute extension requires timely delivery/receipt)
- Vessichio v. Hollenbeck, 18 Conn.App. 515 (Conn. App. 1989) (saving statute compliance required)
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107 (Conn. 1982) (substantial truth suffices for libel defense)
- Luciani Realty Partners v. North Haven Academy, LLC, 119 Conn.App. 522 (Conn. App. 2010) (summary judgment standard; no genuine issues of material fact)