196 Conn.App. 773
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Kenneson obtained jury verdicts against Altman and Rosati; Altman was represented by Eggert and insured by Nationwide.
- Post-verdict, Eggert requested a court-assisted settlement conference; Kenneson signed a general release and withdrawal and accepted $67,000 to settle with Altman/Nationwide.
- Kenneson later learned she could not collect from Rosati (uninsured and deceased) and filed a motion to open the judgment alleging Eggert had induced her to sign the release without explaining its effect; the trial court denied the motion.
- Kenneson then sued Eggert and Nationwide for fraud (intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure). The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on collateral estoppel and other grounds; the Appellate Court reversed in part, holding the intentional misrepresentation claim raised triable issues and remanding.
- After remand defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the litigation privilege (absolute immunity) barred Kenneson’s claim and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether litigation privilege applies and deprives Ct. of subject matter jurisdiction | Eggert's statements at the postverdict settlement were not part of a judicial proceeding and thus not privileged | Statements were made during a judicial proceeding (postverdict settlement conference) and are absolutely privileged | Privilege applies; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether statements made outside courtroom/under oath can be privileged | Statements in hallway/settlement conference are not courtroom pleadings or under oath, so privilege shouldn't bar fraud claim | No requirement that statements be in courtroom, under oath, or in pleadings; privilege extends to preparatory and settlement communications | Statements during the court-ordered settlement conference were judicial in nature and covered by privilege |
| Whether misrepresentations were sufficiently relevant to the judicial proceeding | Statements about signing the withdrawal were unrelated to the underlying tort issues | The test for relevancy is generous; statements were relevant to settlement and resolution of the action | Statements were sufficiently relevant; privilege applies |
| Whether challenge to subject matter jurisdiction via privilege was timely/waivable | Plaintiff argued timing/waiver issues | Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised anytime | Court properly treated privilege as jurisdictional and timely raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 69 A.3d 880 (Conn. 2013) (recognizing expansion of absolute immunity beyond defamation to bar retaliatory civil actions based on litigation statements)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 79 A.3d 60 (Conn. 2013) (discussing origins and scope of litigation privilege)
- Hopkins v. O'Connor, 925 A.2d 1030 (Conn. 2007) (broad test for whether statements are made in course of a judicial proceeding and generous relevancy standard)
- Kenneson v. Eggert, 170 A.3d 14 (Conn. App. 2017) (prior appellate decision in this matter partially reversing summary judgment on intentional misrepresentation)
- Bruno v. Travelers Cos., 161 A.3d 630 (Conn. App. 2017) (noting absolute immunity concerns subject matter jurisdiction and standard for assessing pleadings against privilege)