2010 Ct. Sup. 13195
No. CV08 501 84 48Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
June 9, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICTS
RUSH, J.T.R.
The plaintiff, Marisol Adams, and her two minor children, instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages for an automobile accident occurring on the George Washington bridge in New Jersey in September of 2006. The initial complaint filed by the plaintiffs alleged a claim against the defendant, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, asserting that their vehicle was struck in the rear by an unidentified and uninsured vehicle which fled the scene after the accident.
The plaintiffs asserted a claim under the uninsured motorist provisions of a policy of insurance alleging that they sustained personal injuries as a result of negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an unidentified and uninsured vehicle. Subsequently, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania brought an apportionment complaint against Marijohn Givelekian asserting that he was the operator of the vehicle that struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle. Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted suit against Mr. Givelekian alleging that he was the operator of the vehicle which struck them.
At the trial Mr. Givelekian testified that he had left early on the morning of the accident for St. Martin on a vacation and that he was on that island at the time of the accident. The plaintiff also submitted evidence of a plane ticket reservation leaving the morning of the accident at 8:30 for St. Martin. The plaintiffs also testified, without equivocation, that Mr. Givelekian was not the operator of the vehicle that struck them.
The only claims asserted against Mr. Givelekian was that he was the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident. No claims were asserted which would give rise to any presumption of agency or the utilization of the family car doctrine to establish liability upon Mr. Givelekian after CT Page 13196 the operation of the motor vehicle by another individual. There was no evidence that Mr. Givelekian was the operator of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly the court directed a verdict in his favor. The jury also returned a defendant’s verdict in favor of the defendant insurance company. The jury also responded to an interrogatory stating that the jury found that the vehicle owned by Mr. Givelekian was the vehicle involved in the accident on the George Washington bridge.
The plaintiffs have now moved to set aside the verdicts rendered by the jury. With respect to the individual defendant there was no evidence, of any sort, that he was the operator of the vehicle in question. The plaintiffs themselves testified that Mr. Givelekian was not the operator. Accordingly the plaintiffs could not sustain a verdict against Mr. Givelekian on the grounds that he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident and there were no other claims asserted which would impose liability upon Mr. Givelekian for someone else operating the vehicle. With respect to the claim against the insurance company the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that the vehicle which struck them was uninsured. There was no evidence that the Givelekian vehicle was uninsured and the evidence by Mr. Givelekian indicated that he was in fact insured. Accordingly the jury having found Mr. Givelekian’s vehicle was involved in the accident, there was no evidence that the vehicle was either unidentified or uninsured and in fact the plaintiffs identified photographs of his vehicle as the vehicle which struck them. Accordingly the motion to set aside the verdicts is denied.
CT Page 13197