2006 Ct. Sup. 7050
No. CV 01-0508014SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain
April 12, 2006
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW AND OTHER RELIEF
JULIUS J. KREMSKI, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Treating this motion as a request pursuant to Practice Book §64-1, per Order of the Appellate Court, dated March 22, 2006, this court herein complies.
The court amends its October 25, 2005 Order as follows:
The court finds that the parties herein had a contractual relationship wherein the defendant, inter alia, agreed to provide and insure the defendant against certain risks and would participate in a defense of the plaintiff in instances where insured claims were brought against the defendant.
That various claims were brought against the plaintiff which the plaintiff sought to have the defendant provide for a defense of the plaintiff. The defendant refused to defend the plaintiff against the claims alleging, inter alia, that no such insurance policy was issued by it to the plaintiff, and that it had no record that such policies would have provided the coverage claimed by the plaintiff.
In an attempt to have a determination that such insurance policies existed, the plaintiff resorted to the courts. It first applied to the Federal District Court where it was unsuccessful. It then proceeded to the state court where it was successful in its claims including that the defendant has issued such a policy and that it was in full force and effect. Also, the plaintiff asked for money damages, counsel fees and punitive damages.
This court issued its judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant’s refusal to participate in defending the plaintiff in the asbestosis cases brought against the plaintiff and is incurring expenses in gathering and presenting evidence that such policies were in existence and that CT Page 7051 the defendant had or should have records of them and failed to provide them to the plaintiff.
Because of the refusal of the defendant to provide a legal defense for the plaintiff, it brought this legal action, including a claim for damages.
These damages beside the direct expenses of investigating and obtaining evidence in its actions against the defendant, includes its expenditures in defending against the asbestosis claims against it.
The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered present damages consisting of cost of defending those claims against it with continuing potential damages, that a comparative measure of those damages existed as shown by the attorney fees expended by the parties to date in the instant action. With that as a basis, the court issued its order determining that the legal fees expended by the plaintiff was a measure of the damages it suffered to date. CT Page 7052