Lenon v. Clark, No. Cv89 70 05 30 S (Jul. 17, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Lenon v. Clark, No. Cv89 70 05 30 S (Jul. 17, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6775

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 17, 1992

DocketNo. CV89 70 05 30 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6775 (Lenon v. Clark, No. Cv89 70 05 30 S (Jul. 17, 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

Lenon v. Clark, No. Cv89 70 05 30 S (Jul. 17, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6775 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint by adding a second count alleging a settlement agreement which was not honored. Defendant objects on the grounds that plaintiff should not be permitted to insert information regarding "confidential settlement negotiations" into the complaint.

Normally, offers of compromise of an action are not admissible in the original action against the party making them. See Tait and LaPlante's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence, 2d. Ed. 11.5.4(b) p. 336 and cases cited. Where there is a compromise of a disputed claim, the creditor may, on default, sue either on the original cause of action or on the contract of accord. 15 Williston, Contracts (3d Ed. Jaeger) 1848, cited with approval, Air-Care N.O. Nelson Co. v. Patchet, 5 Conn. App. 203,206 (1985) (Emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has stated that when a compromise has been arrived at, defendant cannot utilize a defense which would have been available in the original action. Azzdina v. Sons of Italy, 119 Conn. 681, 690 (1935).

We consider it inappropriate to join an action on a settlement with the original action, because this would present difficult and confusing questions of evidence at the trial.

Request to amend denied.

WAGNER, J. CT Page 6776

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint by adding a second count alleging a settlement agreement which was not honored. Defendant objects on the grounds that plaintiff should not be permitted to insert information regarding "confidential settlement negotiations" into the complaint.

Normally, offers of compromise of an action are not admissible in the original action against the party making them. See Tait and LaPlante's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence, 2d. Ed. 11.5.4(b) p. 336 and cases cited. Where there is a compromise of a disputed claim, the creditor may, on default, sue either on the original cause of action or on the contract of accord. 15 Williston, Contracts (3d Ed. Jaeger) 1848, cited with approval, Air-Care N.O. Nelson Co. v. Patchet, 5 Conn. App. 203,206 (1985) (Emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has stated that when a compromise has been arrived at, defendant cannot utilize a defense which would have been available in the original action. Azzdina v. Sons of Italy, 119 Conn. 681, 690 (1935).

We consider it inappropriate to join an action on a settlement with the original action, because this would present difficult and confusing questions of evidence at the trial.

Request to amend denied.

WAGNER, J. CT Page 6776

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenon-v-clark-no-cv89-70-05-30-s-jul-17-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack