The "officially released" date on opinions indicates when they are published in the Connecticut Law Journal or released as slip opinions, serving as the start date for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification. All opinions can be modified before their official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In case of discrepancies between an advance release and the final published version, the latter is authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history in official reports are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without permission.
In the case of Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC, the defendant appealed a summary judgment favoring cross-claim defendant K, who had previously represented B Co. in a breach of contract case against the defendant. The defendant's counterclaim against B Co. was dismissed by agreement. The plaintiff later sought damages for unpaid insurance premiums from the defendant. After the trial court allowed the defendant to cite K as a third-party defendant, the defendant filed a cross complaint against K for vexatious litigation related to the earlier B Co. action. The court ruled in favor of K, leading to the defendant's appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for K, stating the defendant failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the earlier action had ended in its favor. The defendant's admission indicated it would not have agreed to dismiss its counterclaim without a reciprocal dismissal from B Co., signifying a contractual agreement akin to a settlement. The court concluded that a summary dismissal by agreement does not constitute a favorable termination for a vexatious litigation claim.
Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC (CT Solid Surface) appeals a summary judgment in favor of Attorney Howard Kantrovitz regarding a vexatious litigation cross claim. CT Solid Surface contends that the court erred in ruling that Kantrovitz was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, asserting that it demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact about the termination of the prior action in its favor. The prior action involved Berkley Net Underwriters, Inc., which, represented by Kantrovitz, sued CT Solid Surface for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums. CT Solid Surface moved to dismiss, claiming Berkley was not a registered legal entity. The court denied Berkley’s motion to substitute Carolina Casualty as the plaintiff. CT Solid Surface counterclaimed against Berkley for statutory violations. The court ultimately ruled on July 24, 2017, that the motions to dismiss were granted by agreement, without addressing the merits. Carolina Casualty later filed a new action against CT Solid Surface for the same unpaid premiums. CT Solid Surface then cross-complained against Kantrovitz for vexatious litigation, alleging his failure to properly investigate Berkley’s status caused unnecessary legal expenses. Kantrovitz moved for summary judgment, asserting that the settlement of the prior action did not favor CT Solid Surface, which is necessary for a vexatious litigation claim. The court affirmed Kantrovitz's motion, indicating that CT Solid Surface's claims lacked legal merit.
Kantrovitz presented CT Solid Surface’s responses to a request for admissions as evidence, which included an acknowledgment that a settlement agreement had been reached in a prior action involving mutual releases and withdrawal of claims. However, it was uncontested that mutual releases were never executed, and the claims were not formally withdrawn. Additionally, a hearing transcript revealed that Attorney Jared Alfin indicated to the court that the parties had agreed to dismiss their motions. CT Solid Surface admitted it would not have consented to dismiss its counterclaim against Berkley without a reciprocal dismissal of Berkley’s claims.
CT Solid Surface objected to Kantrovitz's motion for summary judgment, not disputing the validity of his evidence but challenging the legal inferences from it. They asserted that under Connecticut law, a civil action concluding in a negotiated settlement does not end favorably for either party, which would impede a vexatious litigation claim. However, they argued that a dismissal or abandonment suffices for favorable termination, regardless of a final determination on the merits. CT Solid Surface contended that the only settlement was the unexecuted agreement for mutual releases and withdrawals.
The trial court ruled in favor of Kantrovitz, granting summary judgment on the vexatious litigation claim, determining that CT Solid Surface failed to prove the prior action had terminated in its favor. The court found that there was undisputed evidence showing that the parties had exchanged consideration for their agreement, leading to the conclusion that CT Solid Surface could not substantiate an essential element of its vexatious litigation claim. Following this decision, CT Solid Surface appealed, arguing that the evidence indicated the prior action had indeed terminated in its favor, or alternatively, that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a negotiated settlement. The appellate court disagreed with CT Solid Surface's position.
Summary judgment aims to prevent unnecessary trials by requiring plaintiffs to present sufficient evidence for essential elements of their claims. If a plaintiff cannot do so, they cannot succeed as a matter of law. Following discovery, a plaintiff must show sufficient counterevidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding their claims. Practice Book § 17-49 mandates that summary judgment be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact, entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court must assess evidence favorably for the non-moving party and the burden lies on the party seeking summary judgment to prove the absence of genuine issues of material fact. The opposing party must provide substantial evidence to demonstrate the existence of such issues; mere assertions are insufficient. Genuine issues require evidentiary facts outside the pleadings. The trial court's role is to determine if material issues exist, not to resolve them. The appellate review of summary judgment decisions is plenary, ensuring the trial court's conclusions are legally and logically sound.
In Connecticut, vexatious litigation can arise from common law or statute. To prove common law vexatious litigation, one must establish a lack of probable cause, malice, and a favorable termination of the suit. Under General Statutes § 52-568, the statutory claim does not require proof of malice, although it can increase damages. A defendant lacks probable cause if they do not have a reasonable, good faith belief in the facts and validity of the claim.
The Supreme Court has outlined three approaches regarding the 'favorable termination' requirement in vexatious suit actions. The first approach mandates a judgment of acquittal in criminal cases or no liability in civil cases. The second allows for a vexatious suit if the underlying action is withdrawn under circumstances suggesting the plaintiff's innocence or nonliability. The third approach permits a malicious prosecution claim when a proceeding is abandoned without consideration, meaning no plea bargain or settlement favoring the initiating party. In Connecticut, it has been established that a plaintiff in a vexatious suit action need not prove a favorable termination through a merits adjudication or evidence of innocence, as long as the proceeding ended without consideration.
The court reaffirmed this principle in Blake v. Levy, stating that a lawsuit ending in a settlement does not suffice for a vexatious litigation claim. The law encourages settlements to conserve judicial resources and avoid future litigation threats. The court found that CT Solid Surface could not demonstrate the essential element of favorable termination because evidence indicated that both parties exchanged consideration in the underlying action. Specifically, CT Solid Surface admitted it would not have dismissed its counterclaim without receiving a dismissal of Berkley’s claims against it. Despite CT Solid Surface's assertion that no formal settlement agreement was executed, the court emphasized that consideration can arise from mutual agreements, and CT Solid Surface failed to substantiate its claim that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether a settlement occurred. Assertions without evidentiary support do not create a genuine factual dispute capable of opposing summary judgment.
Berkley and CT Solid Surface entered into a contractual agreement where Berkley would dismiss its complaint in exchange for CT Solid Surface dismissing its counterclaim, resembling a negotiated settlement. This arrangement did not terminate the action in favor of CT Solid Surface, leading to Kantrovitz being entitled to summary judgment on the vexatious litigation cross claim. The judgment was affirmed, with other judges concurring. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, the original plaintiff, was not a party to the cross complaint or the appeal, and the court's ruling on the cross complaint counts was deemed an appealable final judgment despite the pending disposition of Carolina Casualty's complaint.
CT Solid Surface raised multiple arguments on appeal regarding the trial court's findings, including the relevance of consideration exchange, evidentiary support for settlement claims, and whether the action had been voluntarily dismissed post-Kantrovitz's appearance. These arguments were ultimately rejected as part of a broader evaluation of the summary judgment ruling. The court noted that CT Solid Surface's initial cross complaint included an abuse of process claim, which was struck down because it did not demonstrate that the prior action was improperly initiated or that the legal process was misused. After an amended cross complaint was filed regarding only the vexatious litigation count, judgment favored Kantrovitz on the abuse of process claim. During court proceedings, attorneys confirmed via email that motions to dismiss were agreed upon by both parties, leading to the case's dismissal.
