Rosenthal v. Town of Bloomfield, 174 A.3d 839

Twenty-four Bloomfield police retirees sued the Town alleging breach of their 1994 pension plan, claiming the Town replaced their agreed-upon health insurance with a noncomparable plan in 2012.
The 1994 pension plan (amended 1995, 2000) required the Town to make available "Major Medical, Blue Cross Hospitalization and Blue Shield coverage, or comparable insurance" for qualifying retirees and dependents.
In 2012 the Town implemented a new Anthem "Century Preferred $20" plan (per a 2012 employment agreement), notifying retirees that it would apply to pre-65 retirees and dependents effective Sept. 1, 2012.
Plaintiffs alleged the new plan increased certain co-payments (e.g., office visits, ER, urgent care) and sought injunctive relief, damages, and fees; other claims were abandoned.
At trial the court bifurcated liability and damages; plaintiffs submitted an offer of proof on liability only. The Town moved to dismiss under Practice Book § 15-8 for failure to make out a prima facie case; the trial court granted the motion.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed, as a matter of law, to show the new plan substantially reduced benefits or was not comparable when viewed for the class as a whole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Century Preferred $20 plan breached the pension plan's "comparable insurance" clause	Rosenthal: higher co-pays (office, ER, urgent care) show the new plan is not comparable	Bloomfield: the clause allows comparable, not identical, plans; some co-pays rose but others (preventive care, routine eye exams) no longer require co-pays; overall benefits remain substantially commensurate	Held: No breach — plaintiffs failed to show a substantial reduction in benefits to the class as a whole; differences altered form, not material substance
Whether plaintiffs made a prima facie case under Practice Book § 15-8 to proceed on breach of contract	Rosenthal: offered proof of increased cost-sharing sufficient to survive dismissal	Bloomfield: evidence insufficient as a matter of law under Poole to show substantial adverse effect on the retiree group	Held: Trial court properly granted § 15-8 dismissal; plaintiffs’ evidence, even if credited, did not establish a prima facie breach

Poole v. Waterbury, 266 Conn. 68 (2003) (retirees’ benefits vested but employer may make limited modifications; changes must be evaluated for substantial reduction to the group as a whole)
Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 86 Conn. App. 842 (2005) (standard for prima facie case under Practice Book § 15-8)
Chiulli v. Zola, 97 Conn. App. 699 (2006) (elements of breach of contract action and contract interpretation principles)