Riley v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
163 A.3d 1246
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Feb 26, 2009: fire destroyed part of Riley family home; town fire marshal Scheuritzel investigated and concluded accidental electrical origin; Travelers’ investigator Schoener concluded arson (kerosene) and Travelers denied coverage to C. Andrew Riley (but paid Barbara Riley’s personal property claim).
- Travelers also asserted Riley concealed/misrepresented material facts and committed fraud; plaintiff sued (breach of contract; negligent infliction of emotional distress — NIED).
- At trial, plaintiff offered expert testimony (Scheuritzel and Mullen) supporting accidental electrical origin; Travelers presented its own investigators and defended its denial as reasonable.
- Jury found for Riley, rejected Travelers’ special defenses, awarded $504,346.10 for breach of contract and $1,000,000 for NIED. Trial court denied Travelers’ motions JNOV, to set aside, and for remittitur; awarded prejudgment interest at 3%.
- Appeals: Travelers challenged sufficiency of NIED evidence, admissibility of plaintiff’s experts (Porter/Daubert issues), and excessiveness of emotional distress award; Riley cross-appealed the 3% prejudgment interest rate (sought 10%). Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for NIED | Riley: evidence (testimony, experts, conduct of Travelers’ investigator) showed unreasonable investigation, foreseeability, severe distress, causation | Travelers: plaintiff’s case-in-chief lacked proof; denial alone insufficient; distress not severe or caused by more than denial; award excessive | Affirmed: whole trial record (defense evidence included) supports NIED elements; false accusation/biased investigation caused severe, foreseeable distress |
| Directed verdict / waiver rule | Riley: once Travelers presented evidence after its directed-verdict motion, waiver prevents limiting review to plaintiff’s case-in-chief | Travelers: court should have evaluated only plaintiff’s case-in-chief | Held for Riley: Travelers waived that argument by presenting its own case; appellate review uses entire record |
| Expert admissibility (Porter/Daubert) | Riley: Scheuritzel and Mullen qualified; methodology based on training/experience; deviations from NFPA 921 go to weight, not admissibility | Travelers: experts failed to follow NFPA 921; methodology unreliable; court should have held Porter hearing and precluded testimony | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion — experts qualified; alleged departures from NFPA 921 affect weight, not admissibility; no Porter hearing required here |
| Prejudgment interest rate under § 37-3a | Riley: entitled to presumptive 10% statutory rate | Travelers: lower rate appropriate given market rates; trial court has discretion | Held: trial court acted within discretion in awarding 3% based on economic conditions and comparable decisions; 10% is a statutory maximum, not mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. CALCO Construction & Development Co., 318 Conn. 847 (review standard for JNOV/directed verdict)
- Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433 (NIED upheld where insurer’s investigative abuse produced severe distress)
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Porter/Daubert framework for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)
- Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 175 Conn. 337 (mere breach of contract insufficient for tort recovery)
- Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679 (standards and deference for remittitur/excessive verdict review)
- Ballou v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., 304 Conn. 348 (§ 37-3a: 10% is maximum; lower rates within court’s discretion)
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (expert testimony admissibility criteria)
- State v. West, 274 Conn. 605 (distinguishing scientific vs. non-scientific expert evidence; weight vs. admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific evidence)