188 Conn. App. 153
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- July 11, 2011: Aquarion employees entered Parnoff’s property to service a fire hydrant; they found a missing/altered hydrant cap, hoses, and evidence suggesting tampering and possible contamination. Confrontation ensued and police were called; Parnoff was later arrested.
- Parnoff sued (filed July 2014; revised complaint May 2016) asserting claims against Aquarion and three employees for trespass, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy (intrusion on seclusion), and a CUTPA violation (plus other defendants not at issue here).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits, hydrant maintenance records, and a PURA tariff authorizing access; the trial court granted summary judgment on most counts but initially reserved ruling on negligent infliction claims (statute of limitations issue).
- Defendants filed a supplemental summary judgment motion with sealed medical records showing Parnoff saw a psychiatrist on September 6, 2011 and was diagnosed with depression related to the incident; the trial court held the negligent infliction claims time-barred and granted judgment on the remaining counts.
- Parnoff appealed, arguing errors as to trespass, negligent infliction (statute tolling/continuing course), intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction, and CUTPA (ascertainable loss). The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass — use of easement | Parnoff: defendants used the easement unreasonably and therefore trespassed | Defendants: entry authorized by express easement and PURA tariff; independent bases support judgment | Moot on appeal — plaintiff failed to challenge the PURA/tariff ground; appeal lacks relief |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress — statute of limitations | Parnoff: injury discovery subject to factual dispute; continuing course of conduct tolls the limit | Defendants: medical records show discovery by Sept. 6, 2011; §52-584 two‑year discovery rule controls; continuing course doctrine inapplicable | Affirmed — actionable harm discovered by Sept. 6, 2011; suit filed July 2014 is time‑barred |
| Invasion of privacy — intrusion upon seclusion | Parnoff: employees went beyond authorized area and made offensive accusations, intruding on seclusion | Defendants: believed they had authority (easement/tariff), acted to investigate public‑safety risk; conduct not substantial intrusion | Affirmed — no intentional intrusion on secluded/private area and not highly offensive to reasonable person |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Parnoff: July 11 events plus defendants’ continued cooperation with criminal investigation suffice | Defendants: conduct was not extreme or outrageous; cooperation with investigation is not atrocious conduct | Affirmed — conduct did not meet extreme/outrageous standard required for liability |
| CUTPA — ascertainable loss | Parnoff: emotional harm and potential punitive damages/attorney fees satisfy ascertainable loss | Defendants: plaintiff identified only punitive damages/fees in discovery and offered no proof of actual monetary loss | Affirmed — emotional distress and possible remedies (punitive damages/fees) do not establish the threshold ascertainable loss required under CUTPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, 188 Conn. 107 (1982) (adopted Restatement formulation recognizing four privacy torts including intrusion upon seclusion)
- Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (1986) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Rosato v. Mascardo, 82 Conn. App. 396 (2004) (once injury discovered, the statute of limitations begins to run; continuing course doctrine does not delay discovery running)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726 (2018) (failure to challenge all independent bases for adverse ruling renders appeal moot)
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (2013) (explains CUTPA’s ascertainable loss threshold and ‘‘cigarette rule’’ framework)
- Davidson v. Bridgeport, 180 Conn. App. 18 (2018) (recent Connecticut Appellate Court discussion applying Restatement §652B for intrusion upon seclusion)