Ficarra v. Connecticut Disposal Service, No. Cv94 31 77 63 (Jun. 25, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Ficarra v. Connecticut Disposal Service, No. Cv94 31 77 63 (Jun. 25, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6464

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 25, 1997

DocketNo. CV94 31 77 63

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6464 (Ficarra v. Connecticut Disposal Service, No. Cv94 31 77 63 (Jun. 25, 1997)) 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

Ficarra v. Connecticut Disposal Service, No. Cv94 31 77 63 (Jun. 25, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6464 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE #175 "The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff . . . . If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied." (Citations omitted.) Waters v. Autuori,236 Conn. 820, 825-26, 676 A.2d 357 (1996). A motion to strike "admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal CT Page 6465 conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings." (Emphasis omitted.) Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,196 Conn. 91, 108, 491 A.2d 365 (1985).

The third party defendant, Rosenfeld Realty Development, Inc. (Rosenfeld Realty), moves to strike the indemnification cross claim of the defendant/third party plaintiff, Stratford Bailing Corporation (Stratford Bailing), on the ground that Stratford Bailing is not entitled to indemnification because no independent legal relationship exists between Stratford Bailing and Rosenfeld Realty as required by Atkinson v. Berloni,23 Conn. App. 325, 327-28, 580 A.2d 84 (1990) ("Implicit in indemnification cases is the requirement of an independent legal relationship between the indemnitor and the indemnitee giving rise to a special duty.") However, the Connecticut Supreme Court has recently held, "that contrary to the holding in Atkinson v.Berloni, supra, 23 Conn. App. 325, a third party plaintiff, outside the context of workers' compensation law, need not establish the existence of an independent legal relationship between itself and the alleged indemnitor as a condition for recovery on the basis of common law indemnification." Skuzinskiv. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694, 701-02, ___ A.2d ___ (1997).

Therefore, since the present action arises outside of the workers' compensation context, the motion to strike is denied.

David Skolnick

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.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE #175 "The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff . . . . If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied." (Citations omitted.) Waters v. Autuori,236 Conn. 820, 825-26, 676 A.2d 357 (1996). A motion to strike "admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal CT Page 6465 conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings." (Emphasis omitted.) Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,196 Conn. 91, 108, 491 A.2d 365 (1985).

The third party defendant, Rosenfeld Realty Development, Inc. (Rosenfeld Realty), moves to strike the indemnification cross claim of the defendant/third party plaintiff, Stratford Bailing Corporation (Stratford Bailing), on the ground that Stratford Bailing is not entitled to indemnification because no independent legal relationship exists between Stratford Bailing and Rosenfeld Realty as required by Atkinson v. Berloni,23 Conn. App. 325, 327-28, 580 A.2d 84 (1990) ("Implicit in indemnification cases is the requirement of an independent legal relationship between the indemnitor and the indemnitee giving rise to a special duty.") However, the Connecticut Supreme Court has recently held, "that contrary to the holding in Atkinson v.Berloni, supra, 23 Conn. App. 325, a third party plaintiff, outside the context of workers' compensation law, need not establish the existence of an independent legal relationship between itself and the alleged indemnitor as a condition for recovery on the basis of common law indemnification." Skuzinskiv. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694, 701-02, ___ A.2d ___ (1997).

Therefore, since the present action arises outside of the workers' compensation context, the motion to strike is denied.

David Skolnick

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ficarra-v-connecticut-disposal-service-no-cv94-31-77-63-jun-25-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack