Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

Citations

• 337 Conn. 27

Syllabus

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendants, S Co. and its general contractor, C Co., alleging, inter alia, that they had been negligently exposed to asbestos while working for subcontractors on a construction project at S Co.'s facility. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, the costs of medical monitoring for asbestos related diseases, and the establishment of a court monitored fund to pay those costs. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had not suffered any actual injuries and, instead, were seeking medical monitoring for the risk of future injuries, which the defendants claimed is not cognizable under Connecti- cut law. The trial court determined that, because the plaintiffs conceded that they had not been diagnosed with an asbestos related disease, they had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a physical injury. Addressing an issue of first impression under Con- necticut law, the court then concluded that a claim for medical monitor- ing for an increased risk of future injury, in the absence of any present, physical harm, was not cognizable under Connecticut law. Thereafter, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendants. On the plaintiffs' appeal, held that the trial court's judgment was affirmed on the alternative ground that, even if this court were to recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring in the absence of the present manifestation of physical injury, the plaintiffs nevertheless failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to other elements of a medical monitoring claim, namely, whether medical monitoring was reasonably necessary for each individual plain- tiff. Argued December 18, 2019—officially released September 14, 2020