195 Conn.App. 682
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Donna Krausman sued Liberty Mutual after exhausting the tortfeasor’s policy, alleging (1) underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, (2) CUIPA violations, and (3) CUTPA violations.
- The court bifurcated the UIM claim and referred it to nonbinding arbitration; the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $19,500, and no timely trial de novo was demanded, so that award became a judgment.
- The plaintiff served postjudgment interrogatories under General Statutes § 52-351b seeking information about the insurer’s assets; Liberty Mutual did not timely answer.
- The plaintiff moved to compel compliance under § 52-351b(c); the trial court denied the motion after the defendant objected that postjudgment discovery was premature because two counts remained pending.
- Plaintiff appealed the denial; the appellate court held the appeal premature and dismissed it for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because the denial was an interlocutory discovery order and did not meet the Curcio appealability test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to compel answers to § 52-351b interrogatories | Krausman: a money judgment exists so § 52-351b applies now and the court must order compliance; immediate appeal is appropriate because the postjudgment proceeding is separate and plaintiff would be unable to enforce the $19,500 judgment without the discovery | Liberty Mutual: the denial is an interlocutory discovery ruling in a case with unresolved counts; appeal is not from a final judgment and must await final disposition | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the order was interlocutory and neither Curcio prong was satisfied |
| Whether the postjudgment discovery under § 52-351b created a separate and distinct proceeding making the denial immediately appealable | Krausman: § 52-351b proceedings are separate; Presidential Capital supports immediate appealability of postjudgment discovery | Liberty Mutual: Presidential Capital does not help—there the underlying action was fully resolved; here remaining counts keep discovery enmeshed with merits | Court: § 52-351b may create a separate proceeding in some contexts, but here discovery remained intertwined with unresolved counts, so the first Curcio prong fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (sets two‑prong test for when an interlocutory order is immediately appealable)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 279 Conn. 220 (2006) (discusses Curcio prongs and when interlocutory orders affect rights)
- Presidential Capital Corp. v. Reale, 240 Conn. 623 (1997) (addressed appealability of postjudgment discovery and held denial of protective order was not final)
- Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 262 Conn. 240 (2002) (explains final judgment rule and Practice Book exceptions)
- Pease v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 325 Conn. 363 (2017) (illustrates Curcio’s first prong where ancillary proceedings had terminated)