326 Conn. 396
Conn.2017Background
- Machado sued the State Department of Transportation under Gen. Stat. § 52-556 after a state-owned vehicle, driven by a state employee, struck his car; the complaint alleged ownership but did not allege the vehicle was insured by the state.
- At a bench trial the plaintiff produced no evidence proving the vehicle was insured by the state; after close of evidence the DOT filed a motion for judgment of dismissal asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction because § 52-556 requires the vehicle be "owned and insured by the state."
- The plaintiff opposed, attaching a two-year-old interrogatory response in which the defendant admitted the state maintained self-insurance on the vehicle, and moved to open the evidence to admit that interrogatory.
- The trial court denied the DOT’s motion for judgment of dismissal, citing delay and laches for filing the challenge at the close of evidence, and entered judgment for Machado without ruling on the motion to open evidence.
- The DOT appealed solely the denial of its dismissal motion, arguing that delay or laches cannot be a proper basis to deny a subject matter jurisdiction challenge, and that the trial court was required to resolve the jurisdictional question first.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in denying the jurisdictional challenge on the basis of delay or laches and must first determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay or laches can bar a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction | Machado argued the insurance status was never disputed and the DOT’s late filing should be denied for delay; laches could apply | DOT argued lack of insurance proof renders § 52-556 inapplicable and that delay/laches cannot bar a jurisdictional challenge | Delay or laches are not a proper basis to deny a subject matter jurisdiction challenge; court must resolve jurisdiction first |
| Proper procedural vehicle to raise lack of jurisdiction | Machado argued the motion was properly before the court | DOT filed motion under Practice Book § 15-8 and § 10-30; court must treat substance over caption and § 10-30 is proper for subject matter jurisdiction | Motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction must be considered under Practice Book § 10-30 even if captioned otherwise |
| Whether plaintiff waived challenge to prima facie case by presenting evidence | Machado contended DOT waited too long to challenge plaintiff’s proof | DOT’s delay in filing a § 15-8 dismissal would ordinarily waive a failure-of-proof argument if defendant presented evidence | If framed as failure to make a prima facie case under § 15-8, DOT waived that claim by presenting evidence; but jurisdictional challenge remains distinct and must be resolved regardless |
| Whether interrogatory admission could resolve jurisdictional fact issues posttrial | Machado relied on defendant’s prior interrogatory admission of self-insurance | DOT opposed admission as untimely but did not assert it would rebut the interrogatory | Trial court should have considered whether interrogatory and record raised factual issues requiring further proceedings; remanded for trial court to resolve facts and jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275 (interrogatory answers treated as judicial admissions but not conclusive)
- St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538 (Practice Book § 10-30 is the proper procedure to raise lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (trial court may hold a hearing when factual issues are necessary to determine jurisdiction)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction; jurisdictional determinations are questions of law)
- Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v. Norwalk, 320 Conn. 535 (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised posttrial and must be resolved)