152 Conn.App. 196
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Valente, a senior manager at Affinion, received offensive notes from an employee of Securitas acting at Affinion’s premises.
- Affinion conducted an investigation into the notes; a hidden-camera installation was used to identify the writer, an Securitas guard named Veneri.
- Veneri is an overnight security guard employed by Securitas; he is recorded entering Valente’s office and engaging in offensive conduct.
- Valente sued Veneri and Securitas for invasion of privacy, negligence, and emotional distress; Securitas sued Affinion for common-law and contractual indemnification and apportionment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Affinion on Securitas’ common-law indemnification and contractual indemnification claims; Securitas appealed seeking indemnification from Affinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Securitas may obtain common-law indemnification from Affinion | Securitas contends Affinion’s exclusive control over the dangerous condition supports indemnification | Affinion had no exclusive control over Veneri; Veneri’s conduct was the dangerous condition | No genuine issue; Affinion did not have exclusive control; common-law indemnification denied |
| Whether Securitas may obtain contractual indemnification for Valente's claim | Valente's suit relates to Affinion’s investigation, potentially triggering indemnification | No gross negligence or willful misconduct by Affinion; no duty to disclose investigation details | Contractual indemnification not triggered; no gross negligence or willful misconduct by Affinion; indemnification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corp., 152 Conn. 405 (Conn. 1965) (indemnity from a third party requires exclusive control and direct causation by the third party's negligence)
- Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 139 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. 2012) (definition of exclusive control for indemnification)
- Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694 (Conn. 1997) (exclusive control defined as control over the dangerous condition causing the accident)
- Cannizzaro v. Marinyak, 312 Conn. 361 (Conn. 2014) (duty of care required; actionable negligence requires cognizable duty of care)
- Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314 (Conn. 2005) (no separate claim for gross negligence; contract can indemnify for gross negligence)