Date: 11-21-2001

Case Style: Joseph Gomes, et al. v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, et al.

Case Number: SC 16457

Judge: Zarella

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: Leonard M. Isaac, with whom were Louis A. Highmark, Jr., and, on the brief, James P. Brennan, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Defendant's Attorney: John W. Lemega, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen H. Broer, John B. Farley and Bruce H. Raymond, for the appellees (defendants).

Description: The primary issue in this appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiffs to refrain from preventing a third person from rendering aid to prevent damage to the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs, Joseph Gomes, Marguerite Gomes, Vic’s Automotive Service, Inc., and Victor Mathieu brought an action in five counts against the defendants, Arnold Chase, Lawrence Perl, Michael Perl, Roger Freedman and West Hartford Motel Associates (hotel defendants), and Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial Union). The plaintiffs alleged in the first count that Lanita Carter, who was employed by the hotel defendants and allegedly acting within the scope of her employment as a desk clerk,1 negligently prevented a hotel guest from ‘‘rendering aid to the plaintiffs . . . .’’ In the second count, the plain-tiffs alleged that the desk clerk, acting within the scope of her employment with the hotel defendants, intention-ally prevented that guest from ‘‘rendering . . . aid to the plaintiffs . . . .’’ The plaintiffs alleged in the third count that, as a result of the desk clerk’s acts or omis-sions, the hotel defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. In the fourth count of their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress on the part of all defendants owing to a letter sent to the plaintiffs by Commercial Union. In the fifth and final count, the plaintiffs alleged a violation of CUTPA on the part of all defendants as a result of the letter that formed the basis for the fourth count.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts.2 The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

On appeal, the plaintiffs press only their claims of intentional and negligent prevention of the rendering of aid as to the hotel defendants and their negligent infliction of emotional distress and CUTPA claims as to Commercial Union. We reject the plaintiffs’ claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. At or about 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 21, 1995, a guest at the West Hartford Inn (hotel) heard the sound of breaking glass and went to the window in her room to see what had caused the noise. The guest believed that she had observed someone breaking into the plain-tiffs’ gas station located immediately adjacent to the hotel. Thereafter, the guest contacted the desk clerk at the hotel so that the police would be notified. The desk clerk informed the guest she would ‘‘take care of it,’’ and that the gas station was equipped with an alarm system through which the police would be notified of any attempted break-in. The guest believed that she had done all that she needed to do for the police to be contacted and returned to bed. Contrary to the desk clerk’s statement, however, the plaintiffs’ gas station was not equipped with an alarm system. Subsequently, other hotel guests smelled smoke, and they also notified the desk clerk, who did not notify the police or fire department. The plaintiffs’ property sustained damage as a result of the break-in and a fire, which later was determined to be caused by arson. The hotel also was damaged by smoke from the fire on the plaintiffs’ property.

On July 13, 1995, Commercial Union, the hotel’s insurer, sent a letter addressed to the plaintiffs’ gas station seeking reimbursement from the plaintiffs for an insurance claim that it had paid as a result of damage to the hotel caused by the smoke from the fire on the plaintiffs’ property.3 Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Having determined that the conduct of the desk clerk was not actionable under either an intentional tort or negligence theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim similarly must fail because the factual predicate of the claimed unfair or deceptive act or prac-tice, as required by General Statutes § 42-110b (a), does not exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan