DocketNumber: No. CV96 033 54 25 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11347
Judges: MELVILLE, J.
Filed Date: 10/1/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On July 15, 1998, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds of sovereign immunity and insufficiency of service of process. The plaintiff filed an CT Page 11348 objection to the defendant's motion to dismiss on September 8, 1998, when the matter was heard by the court.
The grounds which may be asserted in a motion to dismiss are lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and insufficiency of service of process. Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority,
The defendant argues that it is a regional education service center pursuant to General Statutes §
The plaintiff concedes that the above assertions made by the defendant are correct. The plaintiff argues, however, that the defendant has repeatedly represented that it would pay the plaintiff's medical bills, and that prior to filing this suit, plaintiff's counsel was unable to determine the status of the defendant. The plaintiff argues that based on these factors, the defendant has waived and should be estopped from asserting its sovereign immunity.
The defendant has submitted its constitution, which provides that the Education Connection "shall be established as a regional educational service center in accordance with Section
The doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc.,
The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that, pursuant to General Statutes §
The plaintiff raises the additional argument that the defendant is estopped from using sovereign immunity as a defense. Any claim of estoppel is predicated on proof of two essential elements: the party against whom estoppel is claimed must do or say something calculated or intended to induce another party to believe that certain facts exist and to act on that belief; and the other party must change its position in reliance on those facts, thereby incurring some injury. It is fundamental that a person who claims an estoppel must show that he has exercised due diligence to know the truth, and that he not only did not know the true state of things but also lacked any reasonable available means of acquiring knowledge. Wellington Systems, Inc. v. ReddingGroup, Inc.,
"In addition, estoppel against a public agency is limited and may be invoked: (1) only with great caution; (2) only when the action in question has been induced by an agent having authority in such matters; and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive not to estop the agency." Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Dubno,
204 Conn. 137 ,148 ,527 A.2d 679 (1987).
Since plaintiff cannot show that her alleged reliance was induced by an agent "having authority in such matters", the doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked against this defendant. The plaintiff has not demonstrated, or even argued, that the representatives of the defendant who allegedly misled her had the CT Page 11350 authority to waive sovereign immunity. In light of the statutory provisions giving the claims commissioner the power to waive sovereign immunity in actions against public agencies such as the defendant, representatives of the defendant institution could not waive sovereign immunity. The plaintiff's estoppel argument is therefore without merit.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant is entitled to assert a defense of sovereign immunity. Furthermore, it has not waived its right to assert that defense nor has that right been statutorily waived. Accordingly, inasmuch as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.
MELVILLE, J.