(DOWNLOAD) "Dacruz v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co." by The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Dacruz v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
- Author : The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 04, 2004
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 74 KB
Description
Argued October 28, 2003 Opinion The dispositive issue raised by this certified appeal is whether a judgment declaring that the defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), had no duty to defend its insured against a claim brought by the plaintiff, David J. DaCruz, bars the plaintiff, under principles of collateral estoppel, from holding State Farm liable, pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-321,1 for damages awarded pursuant to a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the insured. The trial court, Levin, J., rendered judgment for State Farm, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court concluded, contrary to the determination of the trial court, that State Farm is liable to the plaintiff under § 38a-321 for the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against State Farm's insured despite the earlier judgment declaring that State Farm had no duty to defend the insured. See DaCruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 69 Conn. App. 507, 516, 794 A.2d 1117 (2002). We disagree with the Appellate Court and, accordingly, reverse its judgment. The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On January 14, 1994, the plaintiff was assaulted by a classmate, Michael Bullock, while attending Amity Regional Junior High School in Orange. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action2 (DaCruz action) against Amity Regional School District and Michael Bullock, among others,3 seeking damages for injuries that he had sustained as a result of that assault. In one count of the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Michael Bullock had committed an intentional assault by threatening him verbally, pushing him and then repeatedly striking him in the face and body. According to the plaintiff, he was knocked to the ground and rendered unconscious. In a second count, the plaintiff alleged the same facts but claimed that Michael Bullock's actions were negligent.4 In another count, the plaintiff alleged that Michael Bullock's parents, Curtis Bullock and Sheila Meadows, were negligent in failing to use reasonable care to control and to restrain their son, and that they were jointly and severally liable under General Statutes § 52-5725 for their son's conduct.