Osborn v. Plourde, No. Cv 91 039 27 38 (Mar. 25, 1992)
Opinion
The applicant argues that being allowed to join as a party plaintiff will promote judicial economy by eliminating the need for a separate action by the insurer to recover the funds paid. Simply put, the statute gives the insurer the right to maintain an action against the tortfeasor, but no right to intervene as a co-party plaintiff. The applicant argues that granting of its application would eliminate the need for another law suit. However, allowing a new party in the pending suit involves such matters as extending jury selection, cross examination and discovery. Judicial economy would not be achieved.
In the context of Workers' Compensation (Ch.
Section 38a-369 (c) creates an exception to the rule at common law against an assignment of a cause of action for personal injuries. Berlinski vs. Ovellette,
The application for joinder as a party plaintiff is denied. CT Page 2755
BURNS, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2753 (Osborn v. Plourde, No. Cv 91 039 27 38 (Mar. 25, 1992)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.