136 Conn. App. 805
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff brought Dram Shop Act claims against Piggy’s Café, Inc. and Malick for injuries from a motor vehicle crash caused by Vasquez, intoxicated after being served at Piggy’s Café.
- Jury awarded $4.2 million; court reduced damages to the Dram Shop Act cap of $250,000 and awarded $35,000 in offer of compromise interest and costs.
- Plaintiff had validly issued an offer of compromise for $250,000 under § 52-192a; defendants rejected it, making interest mandatory if plaintiff recovered at least the offer amount.
- Court awarded offer of compromise interest based on the recovered amount of $250,000, not the $4.2 million verdict.
- Dispute centered on whether § 52-192a interest should attach to the judgment under the Dram Shop Act cap and how to compute the interest.
- Defendants cross-appeal arguing that awarding interest after a $250,000 judgment would exceed the cap; plaintiff argues the interest is applicable to the recovered amount under § 52-192a(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interest under § 52-192a should be calculated on the verdict or on the recovered amount. | LaPlante: interest should reflect $4.2M verdict. | Defendants: ceiling makes interest apply to the verdict/amount recoverable. | Interest calculated on the recovered amount ($250,000). |
| Does awarding offer of compromise interest while the Dram Shop Act cap is reached contravene the Dram Shop Act’s purpose? | Interest promotes settlement and reduces judicial resources. | Interest conflicts with the Dram Shop Act cap. | Award of interest upheld; does not undermine the Dram Shop Act ceiling; serves settlement policy. |
| Should the court consider legislative history to interpret § 52-192a(c) interaction with Dram Shop Act ceiling? | Interpretation could be ambiguous; history supports incentive to settle. | Statutory text governs; history provides context but not overruling plain language. | Legislative history consulted; supports interpreting interest on amount actually recovered within the cap. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (2010) (affirmed punitive-like effect of § 52-192a(c) to encourage settlements)
- Vincent v. New Haven, 285 Conn. 778 (2008) (statutory interpretation principles; plain language duty to construe statute as written)
- Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 289 Conn. 769 (2008) (ambiguity test for statutory interpretation in context)
- Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1 (1998) (plenary review of legal standards; interpretation of statutes)
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67 (1989) (Dram Shop Act cap on damages; interpretation of ‘just damages’)