2003 Ct. Sup. 9201
No. 561286Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London
August 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
HURLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
ISSUE
Before the court is the defendant, Hartford Insurance Company’s, motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff’s claim is based upon recovery against Jeanne Murphy, who is no longer a party to this action by virtue of a summary judgment motion that was granted by the court, Hurley J., on February 24, 2003 (34 Conn.L.Rptr. 181). The defendant’s motion is granted.
FACTS
On February 13, 2002, the plaintiff, Hazel Gregory, filed a two-count complaint. In the first count of her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries as a result of the negligence of her co-worker, Jeanne Murphy. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, the Hartford Insurance Company, is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for her injuries and losses. On August 6, 2002, Murphy filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the court, Hurley, J., on February 24, 2003.
On August 19, 2002, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a brief in support of the motion. Attached to the brief was a single exhibit comprised of the motion for summary judgment and brief in support of the motion filed by Murphy, as well as the exhibits submitted by Murphy. The defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is based on the plaintiff’s recovery against Murphy. The defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Murphy prevailed on her motion for summary judgment. On June 6, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion in opposition to the defendant’s motion, incorporating all of the arguments made in reference to Murphy’s motion for summary judgment. CT Page 9202
DISCUSSION
“The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried.”Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989). “A genuine issue has been variously described as a triable, substantial or real issue of fact; . . . and has been defined as one which can be maintained by substantial evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 378, 260 A.2d 596
(1969). “The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247, 250, 802 A.2d 63 (2002).
In her complaint, the plaintiff states that the injuries and losses she sustained as a result of the actions of Murphy are the legal responsibility of the defendant by virtue of a contract for insurance held between Murphy and the defendant at the time of the incident. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is legally responsible for her injuries and losses under General Statutes § 38a-336. The defendant argues in its brief that it cannot be liable for the injures or losses of the plaintiff if Murphy’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
“A claimant has no direct cause of action against an insurance company of the tortfeasor. The insurance company has the obligation to defend its insureds and to pay damages which the insured owes to the plaintiff when there is a judgment against the defendant.” Weinberg v. Isom, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 0140152 (December 26, 1995, Lewis, J.). Any possible duty that the defendant may have to indemnify the plaintiff for her injuries and losses under the policy depends on whether Murphy is liable to the plaintiff. In light of this court’s action granting Murphy’s motion for summary judgment, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Murphy is no longer a party to this case, and therefore Murphy cannot be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries in the context of this case. Accordingly, the defendants motion is hereby granted because no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Murphy’s liability to the plaintiff
D. Michael Hurly, JTR CT Page 9203