DocketNumber: No. CV01-0276094-S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2925
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/19/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On March 7, 2001, the plaintiff filed a two count complaint alleging negligence and premises liability, and recklessness. On July 26, 2001, the defendant filed an apportionment complaint naming F.J. Dahill Company (Dahill) and Balogh's Painting Restoration Company (Balogh Painting) as apportionment defendants. The defendant alleges in its first count that Dahill, a contractor restoring the smokestack, negligently caused the plaintiffs injuries and, in its second count, that Balogh Painting, an alleged subcontractor also negligently caused the plaintiff's injuries.
On August 1, 2001, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the first count and a motion for summary judgment against the second count.2 In his motion to strike the first count, the plaintiff argues that "the apportionment defendant, F.J. Dahill Co., Inc., the plaintiffs employer, is immune from suit under the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. . . ." In his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argues that res judicata and collateral estoppel bar relief on the second count because the issue of Balogh Painting's negligence was litigated before the workers' compensation committee.
On August 14, 2001, Dahill filed a motion to intervene as a co-plaintiff on the ground that it employed the plaintiff. On August 29, 2001, the court, Levine, J., granted the motion to intervene.
The plaintiff argues that Dahill was his employer and, therefore, is immune from suit under the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation statutes. In response, the defendant argues that Dahill's status as an employer is in issue. The court finds no merit to the defendant's argument.
General Statutes §
Here, the defendant alleges in its apportionment complaint that "[it] had contracted with [Dahill] . . . to perform various services" and that "Dahill entered into a subcontract with Balogh's Painting Restoration [to perform these services]. . . ." Since a subcontractor performs work for and at the behest of the general contractor, this court is of the opinion that Balogh, for all intents and purposes, was an employee of Dahill. Therefore, Dahill, as Balogh's employer, is immune from suit.Allen v. Hutchinson, supra,
The plaintiff argues that because the apportionment complaint names the plaintiffs sole proprietorship, Balogh Painting, it actually impermissibly CT Page 2928 names the plaintiff as an apportionment defendant. In support of his motion, the plaintiff has submitted the following exhibits: the written findings of the workers' compensation commissioner from the administrative proceeding between Dahill and the plaintiff dated July 7, 2000, the opinion of the workers' compensation review board in the same matter dated July 2, 2001, and an affidavit from the plaintiff. The defendant counters that the apportionment complaint actually names a separate party, Balogh Painting, and, therefore, collateral estoppel does not bar the present action. The court need not reach these issues, however, because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Balogh Painting.
The plaintiffs affidavit attests that Balogh Painting is a sole proprietorship in which the plaintiff occasionally contracts his services and that the plaintiff has never operated a corporation or a limited liability company. "It is elemental that in order to confer jurisdiction on the court the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is he or it must be a person in law or a legal entity with legal capacity to sue. . . . Generally, an action may maintained with a mere trade name or business interest possessing no legal personality as plaintiff. . . . No action may be brought by, nor may any suit be maintained against, a trade name as an entity. . . . Any such proceeding is a nullity." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) GMA Yacht Sales v. SkagitMarine Distributing, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 364155 (September 7, 2000, Skolnick, J.) (
BY THE COURT
____________________ SkolnicK, J.