Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 165 Conn. App. 737

Decedent died in 2000 in an auto accident; plaintiffs obtained a $1,000,000 stipulated judgment against the bar (Silk) and received assignment of Silk’s rights under an excess/umbrella policy issued by Mount Vernon.
Several related coverage and agent/broker actions were settled under a "Confidential Settlement Agreement"; Mount Vernon was not a party to that settlement.
In this subrogation action (filed 2011) Mount Vernon sought certain deposition transcripts/exhibits; plaintiffs declined production citing the confidentiality agreement and risk of breach, and refused to file the agreement publicly.
Judge trial referee Thomas F. Parker ordered plaintiffs to file a redacted copy of the confidentiality agreement by March 7, 2014; plaintiffs did not file by that deadline and were eventually nonsuited for failure to comply.
Plaintiffs later filed the agreement under seal and moved to open the nonsuit, arguing (1) Judge Parker lacked authority as a judge trial referee and (2) nonsuit was disproportionate because plaintiffs substantially complied; court denied the motion and plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority of judge trial referee to enter nonsuit	Referral required written consent after case was claimed to jury; no consent given so Parker lacked authority	Referee authority exists under statutes; parties implicitly consented by not timely objecting	Referee had jurisdiction and authority; plaintiffs waived objection by untimely challenge
Clarity of order to "file" confidentiality agreement	Order ambiguous as to how/where to file; plaintiffs substantially complied by sending redacted copy to defense	"File" means file with the court; plaintiffs failed to file by deadline	Order was sufficiently clear; plaintiffs did not timely comply
Whether nonsuit was supported by violation of court order	Plaintiffs argued delay and counsel tactics, not clients’ fault; they eventually produced materials	Mount Vernon argued plaintiffs knowingly delayed and agreement did not bar disclosure	Violation established (failure to file); conduct attributed to plaintiffs’ attorneys but sanction consequences considered separately
Proportionality of nonsuit sanction	Nonsuit was disproportionate; lesser sanctions against counsel could have remedied the violation; defendant not substantially prejudiced	Delay caused unnecessary expense and wasted time; court reasonably imposed severe sanction	Nonsuit was an abuse of discretion: too harsh under circumstances; reversal and remand ordered

Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772 (discusses scope of judicial authority and plenary review)
McCarthy v. Bridgeport, 21 Conn. App. 359 (referees exercise powers of referring court)
Great Country Bank v. Pastore, 241 Conn. 423 (practice concerning referrals to judge trial referees and clerk notation)
Bowman v. 1477 Central Avenue Apartments, Inc., 203 Conn. 246 (parties implicitly consent to referee by failing to timely object)
New England Pipe Corp. v. Northeast Corridor Foundation, 271 Conn. 329 (distinguishes jurisdiction from authority under statute)
Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (standards for sanctions and dismissal/nonsuit)
Rodriguez v. Mallory Battery Co., 188 Conn. 145 (definition and use of nonsuit)
Biro v. Hill, 231 Conn. 462 (standards for opening judgments; abuse of discretion review)
Blinkoff v. O & G Industries, Inc., 89 Conn. App. 251 (dismissal/nonsuit as last resort; proportionality principles)