DocketNumber: No. CV 97-0401576 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4309
Judges: HARTMERE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/20/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On March 2, 1998, by way of a request for leave to amend, the plaintiff, Cynthia DiMauro, the fiduciary and personal representative of the estate of Carissa Rose DiMauro, filed a wrongful death action against the estate of Peter E. Aiardo, Jr. The complaint alleges that the death of Carissa Rose DiMauro was proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of Peter E. Aiardo, Jr. The complaint also alleges that the negligent conduct of Peter E. Aiardo, Jr. was in violation of several Florida statutory provisions regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. The plaintiff claims double and treble damages against the defendant's estate. CT Page 4310
On November 7, 1997, the representative of the defendant's estate, Jennie A. Aiardo (Aiardo), filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for double and treble damages. Aiardo argues that the claim for multiple damages is legally insufficient. In her memorandum in support of the motion to strike, Aiardo argues that neither General Statutes §
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any pleading to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Waters v. Autuori,
In the present case, it is alleged that the parties are residents of Connecticut, that the alleged automobile accident occurred in Florida, and that the operation of the vehicle was in violation of Florida rules of the road. "Nevertheless, there appear to be additional factors which may be relevant to the court's choice of law analysis, but that are not contained in the pleadings." Ffolkes v. Pasko, supra, 443. For example, the facts are sparse regarding the domicile of the alleged victim and the decedent tortfeasor; the relationship of the victim and the decedent tortfeasor; and the purpose of the alleged victim and the decedent tortfeasor being in Florida at the time of the accident. Cf. Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.,
Since the court is unable to determine the respective interests of Connecticut and Florida the motion to strike the claim of multiple damages is procedurally inappropriate at the present time. Depending upon the law which the court applies, the motion to strike may produce different results. Under Connecticut law, the plaintiff may not have pleaded legally sufficient facts to support a claim for multiple damages, rendering the motion to strike proper.1 Yet, her claim may be legally sufficient under Florida law, and thus the motion would be improper.2
Accordingly, the court will deny the motion to strike (#106) the claim of multiple damages without prejudice until more facts are alleged that indicate which law should apply.
So Ordered.
Michael Hartmere Judge of the Superior Court