DocketNumber: No. CV 95-0469957S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6793
Judges: HANDY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/10/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The underlying case is a wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff, the administratrix of the decedent's estate, against multiple defendants for the decedent's death allegedly caused by one or more of the named defendants. The incident which caused the death involved a lift with a gate and latch mechanism which allegedly opened and from which the decedent allegedly fell.
The case was returnable to the court on October 31, 1995. Subsequently, by Motion to Intervene dated November 29, 1995, FPS Fireproofing, Inc. moved to be joined as a co-plaintiff and to CT Page 6794 file an intervening complaint. When the motion was claimed, the court (Handy, J.) denied the motion without prejudice on June 24, 1996, noting that the "motion must contain a date regarding notice to ensure compliance with §
Subsequent to that denial, the plaintiff reclaimed the Motion to Intervene. As previously indicated, the court denied said motion on July 15, 1996.1 Objections to the motion with accompanying memoranda of law had been filed by some of the parties in the case.
II. DISCUSSION
In the intervenor's proposed intervening complaint dated November 29, 1995, FPS Fireproofing, Inc., a/k/a FPS, Inc., alleges that the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff's decedent was employed by it. There are allegations that FPS, Inc. may have to make future payments to plaintiff's decedent.
There are not, however, any allegations that the plaintiff's decedent was in fact employed by FPS. Inc. or that FPS, Inc. made any payments to plaintiff's decedent.
Since the intervenor made no claim of an employment relationship with the plaintiff's decedent and since the intervenor made no claim of any payment on the plaintiff decedent's behalf, the court finds that §
Additionally, a statute of limitations problem exists with the intervenor's motion. Plaintiff's injury occurred on November 2, 1993. FPS did not file its Motion to Intervene until November 29, 1995. The controlling statute of limitations is found in §
Additionally, there is recent trial court case law which this court finds persuasive which precludes an out-of-state entity appearing in a Connecticut proceeding where the law of the employee's home state doe not allow an intervention. Benefits in this case have been claimed in Rhode Island and from information in the court file, it appears that no benefits have been paid in that forum. The applicable law in Rhode Is land does not provide for a right of intervention in the third party action. (See Rhode Island General Law § 28-35-58, attached.) In accordance withStoker v. Marriott, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, No. 89-369701,
III. CONCLUSION
Based on all of the foregoing, the Motion to Intervene is denied.
Susan B. Handy, Judge