Bariko v. Travelers Insurance Company, No. Cv92 0291652s (May 14, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bariko v. Travelers Insurance Company, No. Cv92 0291652s (May 14, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4497

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 14, 1992

DocketNo. CV92 0291652S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4497 (Bariko v. Travelers Insurance Company, No. Cv92 0291652s (May 14, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bariko v. Travelers Insurance Company, No. Cv92 0291652s (May 14, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4497 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ARTICULATION CT Page 4498 Assuming the duty to pay compensation had arisen, and that plaintiff's entitlement to worker's compensation benefits had been sufficiently pled, (despite defendant's claim to the contrary) the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Connecticut Worker's Compensation Act (See defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike at pp. 3-7.) DeOliveira v. Ross Roberts, Inc., et al,7 CSCR 32 (January 6, 1992).

Although an independent action against an employer who has delayed making compensation payments to an employee has been recognized; (see Carpentino v. Transport Insurance Co.,607 F. Sup. 556 (D. Conn. 1985)), to take advantage of this very limited exception to the exclusivity provision, an employee must allege intentional misconduct. Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,6 CSCR 625 (June 11, 1991). Payment disputes with a compensation insurer may not be litigated in the Superior Court unless conduct that shows an intentional, wilful and deliberate delay designed to cause the injury that allegedly resulted has been pled. Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91, 102 (1985). Not only must the delay have been intentional, but it must have been done for the purpose of accomplishing the results plead or with knowledge that to a substantial certainty such results would occur. Id. In the absence of such allegations, the motion to strike is granted.

KATZ, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ARTICULATION CT Page 4498 Assuming the duty to pay compensation had arisen, and that plaintiff's entitlement to worker's compensation benefits had been sufficiently pled, (despite defendant's claim to the contrary) the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Connecticut Worker's Compensation Act (See defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike at pp. 3-7.) DeOliveira v. Ross Roberts, Inc., et al,7 CSCR 32 (January 6, 1992).

Although an independent action against an employer who has delayed making compensation payments to an employee has been recognized; (see Carpentino v. Transport Insurance Co.,607 F. Sup. 556 (D. Conn. 1985)), to take advantage of this very limited exception to the exclusivity provision, an employee must allege intentional misconduct. Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,6 CSCR 625 (June 11, 1991). Payment disputes with a compensation insurer may not be litigated in the Superior Court unless conduct that shows an intentional, wilful and deliberate delay designed to cause the injury that allegedly resulted has been pled. Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91, 102 (1985). Not only must the delay have been intentional, but it must have been done for the purpose of accomplishing the results plead or with knowledge that to a substantial certainty such results would occur. Id. In the absence of such allegations, the motion to strike is granted.

KATZ, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bariko-v-travelers-insurance-company-no-cv92-0291652s-may-14-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack