163 Conn.App. 241
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Stevens was sole shareholder of F & S Oil Co.; business collapsed leaving many unfulfilled prepaid contracts and a receiver was appointed (Helming & Helming & Company, P.C.).
- Receiver audited corporate accounts, alleged Stevens used corporate funds for personal expenses, and filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy court alleging corporate waste.
- The Waterbury Republican‑American published an article quoting Helming: the "99 percent" comment (predicting most claims would "stand up") and a statement that payments occurred "from one year to up to five years."
- Stevens sued the receivers for defamation, pleading only the 99 percent comment and the proof‑of‑claim allegations; he did not plead the one‑to‑five‑year wording.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (absolute litigation privilege, fair comment, substantial truth, opinion). The trial court granted summary judgment as to the 99 percent comment (protected opinion/fair comment) and declined to consider the one‑to‑five‑year allegation because it was not pleaded.
- Stevens appealed solely arguing the trial court improperly refused to consider the unpled one‑to‑five‑year allegation; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider the "one to five year" allegation at summary judgment | Stevens: complaint should be read broadly; the complaint encompassed the one‑to‑five‑year statement | Helming: court may consider only allegations in the operative complaint; the one‑to‑five‑year claim was not pleaded | Court: no error — summary judgment limited to pleaded allegations; one‑to‑five‑year allegation not pleaded, so not considered |
| Whether the 99% comment was actionable defamation | Stevens: the 99% comment was defamatory and not privileged | Helming: the 99% comment was opinion/fair comment on a matter of public concern (First Amendment) and privileged; alternatively, statements in proof of claim were privileged/true | Court: 99% comment is protected opinion and fair comment; summary judgment for defendants upheld as to that statement |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican‑American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107 (Conn. 1982) (fair comment/opinion protection in defamation law)
- Arnone v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 90 Conn. App. 188 (Conn. App. 2005) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence for appellate review)
- New Haven Savings Bank v. LaPlace, 66 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2001) (pleadings limit issues at summary judgment; factual disputes outside pleadings are insufficient)
- Witczak v. Gerald, 69 Conn. App. 106 (Conn. App. 2002) (pleadings construed broadly but must give notice and not surprise opponent)
- Lyons v. Nichols, 63 Conn. App. 761 (Conn. App. 2001) (variance between complaint and proof not material where timely and not prejudicial)
- Chertkova v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 76 Conn. App. 907 (Conn. App. 2003) (defamation claims require specificity in pleading; identify statements, speaker, and recipients)