Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any personal injury matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.
In the case of Kilduff v. Adams, Inc., creditors and their corporate entity sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Hartford-New Britain, which denied its motions for remittitur and to set aside the verdict in favor of their debtors and bankruptcy trustee. In law, a motion for remittitur is a request for the judge to make an independent ruling regarding the decisions reached by a jury. Generally, the judge may lower the jury’s award of damages, or even throw out their determination altogether. The creditors denied the claims of fraud and unjust enrichment. In addition, the creditors contested the debtors introduction of a psychiatric report in her argument that the creditors had inflicted emotional distress.
The debtors filed suit against the creditors seeking damages for fraud and unjust enrichment. The debtors won a jury verdict. The trial court denied the creditors’ motions to set aside the verdict and for remittitur. The creditors’ appeal was transferred to the court, which held that: (1) because of creditors’ misrepresentations, the debtors did not pursue their options to protect the ownership of their home and were injured as a matter of law; (2) the creditors should have realized that their conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress; (3) jury instructions regarding damages for emotional distress, the reasonable foreseeability of harm, and the standard of proof for the elements of fraud were proper; (4) an omission in the jury instructions regarding the foreseeability test was not material; (5) piercing the corporate veil was unnecessary since the individual creditors were liable; (6) the corporate creditor was liable under respondeat superior; (7) it could not be determined from the creditors’ motion for remittitur if the total damages were excessive as a matter of law; and (8) a psychiatrist’s report was admissible under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-174(b).
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which denied the creditors’ motions to set aside the verdict and for remittitur. “The [creditor’s] argument that emotional distress is not a ‘personal injury’ as that term is used [in Connecticut law] ignores the plain meaning of that term as well. A ‘personal injury’ is defined as ‘an injury affecting one’s physical and mental person as contrasted with one causing damage to one’s property’ . . . Numerous jurisdictions have held that emotional distress or mental anguish is a type of “personal injury” said the court. ” We have reviewed the report in question and conclude that it satisfies the standard outlined in [prior Connecticut caselaw.]”
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained. Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any personal injury matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.
Source: Kilduff v. Adams, Inc., 219 Conn. 314, 593 A.2d 478, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 298, 11 A.L.R.5th 957 (Conn. 1991)
***All posts for the MayaLaw.com blog are created as a public service for the community. This case overview is intended for informational purposes only, and is not a solicitation of any client.***