Grotto, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Citations

• 227 Conn. App. 314

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, alleged negligent misrepresentation by the defendant insurance company related to a workers' compensation insurance policy. The defendant issued the plain- tiff a policy in September, 2015. In October, 2015, the defendant issued a cancellation notice of the policy with an effective cancellation date of November 3, 2015. After the November 3 date had passed, the defen- dant sent multiple letters to the plaintiff, some of which indicated that the policy may be cancelled and others of which indicated that the policy had been cancelled. An employee of the plaintiff, L, suffered a compensable injury in May, 2016, and filed a workers' compensation claim, and the defendant denied coverage on the basis that the policy had been cancelled on November 3, 2015. In 2019, following a formal hearing, a workers' compensation commissioner concluded that the policy was still in effect on the date of L's injury. The defendant appealed to the Compensation Review Board, which reversed the commissioner's decision. The plaintiff appealed the board's decision to this court, which affirmed the decision. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the present case relating to the defendant's conduct after the cancellation of the policy. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment for the defendant: the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the plaintiff's claims, which related to the defendant's conduct following the cancellation of the policy and, thus, did not fall within the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31- 275 et seq.) and could not have been litigated before the commissioner, whose limited jurisdiction did not extend to those claims; accordingly, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case f