DocketNumber: No. CV 96-0153 949
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5153
Judges: LEWIS, JUDGE. CT Page 5154
Filed Date: 4/29/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant filed an answer denying that its two limited partners were intended to be or were included in the coverage furnished by the plaintiff.
Pursuant to General Statutes §
The defendant filed an objection to the fact-finder's report; see Practice Book § 546H, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) §
When reviewing reports of fact finders, "the court may . . . (1) render judgment in accordance with the finding of facts; (2) reject the finding of facts and remand the case to the fact-finder who originally heard the matter for a rehearing on all or part of the finding of facts; (3) reject the finding of facts and remand the matter to another fact-finder for rehearing; (4) reject the finding of facts and revoke the reference; (5) remand the case to the fact-finder who originally heard the matter for a finding on an issue raised in an objection which was not addressed in the original finding of facts; or (6) take any CT Page 5155 other action the court may deem appropriate." Practice Book § 546J.
"A reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of either administrative agencies. . . . or attorney trial referees." (Citations omitted.) Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc.,
The findings of fact in a contract action such as this case should be overturned "only when they are clearly erroneous." A fact-finder's recommendations should be accepted when "there is nothing that is unreasonable, illogical or clearly erroneous in the findings of the fact finder and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. MansourBuilders, Inc., supra,
Additionally, "[g]reat deference is given to the trial court's findings because the trial court is responsible for weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses." Beizer v. Goepfert,
Based upon a review of the report, the court finds that the fact-finder's conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $6,578 is supported by the subordinate facts that he found.1 The fact-finder received in evidence certain invoices that confirmed the issuance of the workers' compensation CT Page 5156 insurance to the defendant. As to the issue of whether the defendant had given proper notice of its election not to include its partners, the defendant did not offer any letter or other form of such notification. Thus, the fact-finder could reasonably conclude that no such notification was ever sent. This factual finding, which cannot be disturbed by the court, leads logically and legally to the conclusion that the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount recommended.
Accordingly, the report of the fact-finder is accepted and judgment enters in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $6,578. Costs are to be taxed by the office of the chief clerk in accordance with General Statutes §
So Ordered.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 29th day of April, 1998.
William B. Lewis, Judge.