Travelers Insurance v. General Electric Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Travelers Insurance v. General Electric Co.

644 A.2d 346, 230 Conn. 106, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 208

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided July 12, 1994·No. 14900·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a trial court has rendered an appealable judgment when it denies a litigant’s motion to stay a civil action to permit arbitration. The plaintiff, Travelers [107] Insurance Company, filed an action against the defendant, General Electric Company, alleging the nonpayment of a lease termination payment. In response to the plaintiffs application for a prejudgment remedy,¹ before filing an answer, the defendant moved the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-409,² to stay the pending litigation until the completion of arbitration proceedings. Concluding that the defendant had failed to prove that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate its claim, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant appealed the denial of its motion to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

The plaintiff maintains that the trial court’s denial of the stay is not an appealable order. We agree. In Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., 223 Conn. 761, 769, 613 A.2d 1320 (1992), we held that, “[b]ecause ... a civil action must be pending for a § 52-409 order to be issued . . . such an order is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable.” Applying the two part test for an appealable interlocutory order articulated in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), we concluded that a § 52-409 order is neither an “order or action [that] terminates a separate and distinct proceeding” nor an “order or action [that] so concludes the rights of the parties that [108] further proceedings cannot affect them.” Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 769-76.

The procedural context for our decision in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 223 Conn. 769-76, was a decision of a trial court that granted a defendant’s motion for a stay pursuant to § 52-409. In this case, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a stay pursuant to § 52-409. Despite the defendant’s earnest argument to the contrary, we conclude that this is a distinction without a difference. The analysis contained in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, expressly encompassed any order “granting or denying a stay under § 52-409.” Id., 768.

We are unpersuaded that we should reconsider our holding in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 223 Conn. 761, or limit its applicability. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is premature.

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

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

Per Curiam.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a trial court has rendered an appealable judgment when it denies a litigant’s motion to stay a civil action to permit arbitration. The plaintiff, Travelers [107] Insurance Company, filed an action against the defendant, General Electric Company, alleging the nonpayment of a lease termination payment. In response to the plaintiffs application for a prejudgment remedy,¹ before filing an answer, the defendant moved the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-409,² to stay the pending litigation until the completion of arbitration proceedings. Concluding that the defendant had failed to prove that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate its claim, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant appealed the denial of its motion to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

The plaintiff maintains that the trial court’s denial of the stay is not an appealable order. We agree. In Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., 223 Conn. 761, 769, 613 A.2d 1320 (1992), we held that, “[b]ecause ... a civil action must be pending for a § 52-409 order to be issued . . . such an order is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable.” Applying the two part test for an appealable interlocutory order articulated in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), we concluded that a § 52-409 order is neither an “order or action [that] terminates a separate and distinct proceeding” nor an “order or action [that] so concludes the rights of the parties that [108] further proceedings cannot affect them.” Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 769-76.

The procedural context for our decision in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 223 Conn. 769-76, was a decision of a trial court that granted a defendant’s motion for a stay pursuant to § 52-409. In this case, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a stay pursuant to § 52-409. Despite the defendant’s earnest argument to the contrary, we conclude that this is a distinction without a difference. The analysis contained in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, expressly encompassed any order “granting or denying a stay under § 52-409.” Id., 768.

We are unpersuaded that we should reconsider our holding in Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., supra, 223 Conn. 761, or limit its applicability. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is premature.

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

Travelers Insurance v. General Electric Co., 644 A.2d 346, 230 Conn. 106, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 208 (Colo. 1994).

Pincite

644 A.2d 346 (Travelers Insurance v. General Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Footnotes

Related