Petrucelli v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co.
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 528
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Jean Petrucelli filed an underinsured motorist claim (accident in 1997); parties agreed to arbitration and executed an arbitration agreement in 2011.
- Arbitration panel: three arbitrators—Plaintiff selected Merly (dissented), Defendant selected Holmes, both selected Somers as neutral chair.
- Hearing held Aug 25, 2011; plaintiff brief filed Sept 2, defendant brief Sept 8; arbitrators telephoned Nov 8 to discuss the case.
- Panel issued a written award for the defendant on Nov 29, 2011; plaintiff received notice Dec 6, 2011; Merly issued a dissent Dec 8 (plaintiff received Dec 12).
- Plaintiff filed to vacate the award on Jan 9, 2012; defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the 30‑day deadline to move to vacate.
- Trial court found the award timely under the parties’ arbitration agreement (hearing deemed open until Nov 8) and held plaintiff’s vacatur application untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52‑420(b); dismissal affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nov 29, 2011 arbitration award was timely under the parties' agreement and §52‑416 | Award was untimely because 30‑day period began on Sept 8 (last brief) | Parties agreed at hearing the hearing remained open until arbitrators met; 30‑day period began when hearing closed Nov 8 | Court: hearing remained open until Nov 8 (supported by Somers' notes and email); Nov 29 award timely |
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's motion to vacate under §52‑420(b) | Plaintiff filed vacatur within a reasonable time; court should hear merits | Plaintiff received notice Dec 6; statute requires motion within 30 days; Jan 9 filing was late; no jurisdiction | Court: motion filed after 30‑day statutory period; lacked subject matter jurisdiction; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Remax Right Choice v. Aryeh, 100 Conn. App. 373, 918 A.2d 976 (2007) (parties may enlarge statutory arbitration timeframes by agreement)
- Administrative & Residual Employees Union v. State, 200 Conn. 345, 510 A.2d 989 (1986) (statutory requirement that extensions be in writing applies only absent parties' agreement)
- Asselin & Connolly, Attorneys, LLC v. Heath, 108 Conn. App. 360, 947 A.2d 1061 (2008) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear motion to vacate filed after thirty days)
- C. F. Wooding Co. v. Middletown Elk's Home Corp., 177 Conn. 484, 418 A.2d 904 (1979) (party's failure to object to arbitration procedure can be noted against later challenge)
- Carr v. Trotta, 7 Conn. App. 272, 508 A.2d 799 (1986) (chairman arbitrator may control procedural aspects, including when hearing is deemed completed)
- Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 285 Conn. 278, 939 A.2d 561 (2008) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186, 994 A.2d 106 (2010) (standard of review for motions to dismiss challenging jurisdiction)
- Bailey v. Lanou, 138 Conn. App. 661, 54 A.3d 198 (2012) (clearly erroneous standard for review of trial court factual findings)