328 Conn. 726
Conn.2018Background
- Leonetti worked 28 years for MacDermid and sustained a compensable 2004 workplace back injury; he was discharged in 2009 and presented with a severance/termination agreement in 2010.
- The agreement provided $70,228.51 severance plus other benefits in exchange for a broad release (including workers' compensation claims) and other covenants.
- Leonetti signed after MacDermid threatened to withdraw the severance offer; the payment was made before the Workers' Compensation Commissioner approved any release.
- The Commissioner and the Workers’ Compensation Review Board found the workers’ compensation release unenforceable without commissioner approval; this Court affirmed in Leonetti v. MacDermid, holding the commission lacked authority to enforce non‑workers’‑compensation contract issues.
- MacDermid sued Leonetti in a separate civil action asserting unjust enrichment and related counts (jury found for MacDermid on unjust enrichment for $70,228.51).
- On appeal Leonetti raised collateral estoppel/res judicata, statutory/public policy bars (§§31‑290, 31‑296), claims of instructional error, and challenges to exclusion of several defense exhibits; the Supreme Court affirmed judgment for MacDermid in part and dismissed some evidentiary claims as moot or unpreserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars the unjust enrichment claim | MacDermid: prior workers’ comp proceedings did not adjudicate unjust enrichment elements; Leonetti left civil recourse open | Leonetti: prior decision established the release was unenforceable, so MacDermid cannot treat the promise as a basis for recovery | No—issues are not identical; Leonetti did not decide the unjust enrichment issues and expressly preserved civil remedies |
| Whether recovery is precluded by §§31‑290/31‑296 or public policy / by terms of the agreement | MacDermid: severance payment was voluntary, not workers’ comp benefit; restitution does not impair plaintiff’s statutory obligations | Leonetti: permitting recovery would circumvent workers’ comp approval requirement and offend public policy and the agreement’s severability clause bars restitution | Not reviewed on merits—defendant failed to preserve these statutory/public‑policy arguments in timely directed‑verdict motion; also Court noted severance was not a workers’ comp benefit |
| Whether trial court erred in jury instructions (including failure to give requested charges about Leonetti and statutes) | MacDermid: court fairly instructed jury about Leonetti and statutes; no prejudice shown | Leonetti: court should have limited jury to considering non‑workers’‑compensation portions and instructed on §§31‑290/31‑296 | Most instructional claims deemed inadequately briefed or barred by the general verdict rule (no interrogatories), so not reviewable on the merits |
| Whether exclusion of defense exhibits was erroneous | MacDermid: many exhibits were hearsay or more prejudicial than probative; trial court properly excluded them | Leonetti: excluded exhibits were relevant to communications/state of mind and not hearsay or were admissible for non‑truth purposes | Some evidentiary claims dismissed as moot because alternative, unchallenged bases supported exclusion; remaining claim (Exhibit Z) not reviewed due to inadequate briefing on harmfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc., 76 A.3d 168 (Conn. 2013) (workers’ compensation release unenforceable without commissioner approval; commission lacks authority over non‑compensation contract issues)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 766 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2001) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Lyon v. Jones, 968 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2009) (standards for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Kalams v. Giacchetto, 842 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 2004) (general verdict rule and when it bars appellate review of instructional error)
- Scanlon v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 782 A.2d 87 (Conn. 2001) (harmfulness requirement for jury instruction errors)