Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 128 Conn. App. 818

Plaintiffs Soracco and Williams Scotsman, Inc. disputed a settlement in which Soracco and Manafort Brothers, Inc. were involved in a workers' compensation-related action.
Manafort intervened to recover workers' compensation benefits and asserted a lien of $542,411.69 against the settlement proceeds.
Judge Holzberg conducted a mediation in 2006; a settlement was reached to pay $750,000 in total with equal division between Soracco and Soracco, but Manafort objected to the allocation.
Manafort's position was that it would not be bound by Judge Holzberg's equal-split allocation unless it was satisfied with its recovery; the court allowed a hearing on reasonableness of the split.
Supreme Court later held that § 31-293(a) does not authorize an employer to challenge or interfere with a settlement between employee and tortfeasor, and cannot bind the settlement terms.
In 2009 the parties filed a joint motion for judgment enforcing the settlement; the court denied the motion, finding the agreement not unambiguously binding all parties and not enforceable as a judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the denial of the joint motion for judgment a final judgment for appeal purposes?	Soracco/Scotsman contend it is a final judgment under Curcio second prong.	Manafort argues it is not final because rights to avoid trial are not presently held as a statute/constitutional right.	Not a final judgment; appeals dismissed.
Was the settlement agreement unambiguous and enforceable as a matter of law under Audubon Parking?	They claim clear terms to enforce with equal split were binding.	Manafort asserted it existed only as a contingent, non-binding understanding until its own recovery was secured.	The agreement was not unambiguous as to all parties and cannot be enforced as a judgment.
Does Curcio second prong permit immediate appeal where rights to avoid trial are contractual rather than constitutional or statutory?	Right to avoid trial is at stake and could be irreparably harmed without immediate appeal.	Contractual right to avoid trial does not meet Curcio criteria for immediate appeal.	Second prong not satisfied; no final judgment for immediate appeal.

Sharon Motor Lodge, Inc. v. Tai, 82 Conn. App. 148 (2004) (contractual right to avoid trial; not a presently held statutory right; not final appeal)
Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993) (enforceability of settlement terms; Audubon hearings on clarity)
State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two circumstances for interlocutory appeal: separate proceeding or rights that cannot be affected further)
Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Dept. of Income Maintenance, 208 Conn. 187 (1988) (collateral estoppel denial deemed ripe for immediate review)
Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228 (2010) (collateral estoppel as civil analogue to double jeopardy)