DocketNumber: No. 32 22 91
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5114-ZZZ
Judges: MORAGHAN, J.
Filed Date: 7/29/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants have denied all of the allegations and have interposed the special defense of Calo's contributory negligence. Subsequently, on March 25, 1996, the defendants filed an "apportionment complaint" against Calo, Connecticut Life's insured, seeking "[a] determination by the fact finder of a percentage of liability, if any, attributable to the apportionment defendant, Karen Calo."
Connecticut Life has moved to strike the apportionment complaint as improper in this action because the defendants have already raised a special defense of equivalent effect. The defendants have objected to the motion, arguing that the apportionment complaint is necessary to fully resolve all issues in this case.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'" (Citations omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.,
Perhaps a brief description of the three major principles raised in the present dispute — subrogation, contributory negligence and apportionment — will facilitate resolution CT Page 5114-BBBB of the motion and associated objection. Subrogation is "`the machinery by which the equity of one man is worked out through the legal rights of another.'" Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.v. Chung,
The doctrine of contributory negligence, as raised in the defendants' special defense, "is predicated on the settled principle that . . . one cannot recover for a wrong brought about by his own acts. . . . Contributory negligence differs from primary negligence, which involves a breach of duty to others, in that contributory negligence involves an undue risk of harm to the actor himself, and might better be described as contributory fault, or contributory misconduct." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hoelter v. Mohawk Service, Inc.,
The purpose of an apportionment complaint, pursuant to Public Act 95-111(1)(f), is to "add a person who is or may be liable pursuant to section
The bill provides inter alia that if the action against the defendant who instituted the apportionment complaint pursuant to subsection (a) of this section is subject to such a defense or bar, the apportionment defendant may plead such a defense or bar to any claim brought by the plaintiff directly against apportionment by the defendant pursuant to subsection (d) of the section. P.A. 95-111(1)(b). This language provides an indication that parties in Calo's position were not intended to be among the parties within the scope of this new law. Based on the quoted passage, if the defendants' apportionment complaint were allowed, Calo would be authorized to raise the statute of limitations against the bringing of her own action as subrogated to her insurance company — in essence, asserting the statute of limitations against herself.2 This contorted result is certainly not what the legislature intended.
This analysis leads to the inescapable conclusion that in a subrogation action, Public Act 95-111 may not be used to apportion blame between the nominal party in interest and the defendant. The defendants in the present case have already asserted the special defense of contributory negligence. This defense is the proper method of asserting that Calo's misconduct contributed to her injuries and, if proven, will reduce the plaintiff's potential award accordingly. The defense of contributory negligence is equally good against the plaintiff insurer and Calo, so the defendants will be able to achieve the same result as sought by bringing the apportionment action.
The motion to strike is, accordingly, granted.
Moraghan, J.