Welcome to our Supreme and Appellate Court summaries webpage. On this page, I provide abbreviated summaries of decisions from the Connecticut appellate courts which highlight important issues and developments in Connecticut law, and provide practical practice pointers to litigants. I have been summarizing these court decisions internally for our firm for more than 10 years, and providing relevant highlights to my municipal and insurance practice clients for almost as long. It was suggested that a wider audience might appreciate brief summaries of recent rulings that condense often long and confusing decisions down to their basic elements. These summaries are limited to the civil litigation decisions. I may from time to time add commentary, and may even criticize a decision’s reasoning. Such commentary is solely my own personal opinion.. Pullman & Comley’s Appellate Practice Group of which I am a member includes experienced appellate advocates in almost every area of the law. Should you have a need to consult about a potential appeal, please email me at email@example.com I hope the reader finds these summaries helpful. – Edward P. McCreery
Posted May 7, 2015
Plaintiff received a jury verdict of $4.5 million in this medical malpractice action due to the wrongful removal of certain organs. The plaintiff was then awarded another $4.5 million in “offer of judgment interest” resulting in a total judgment greater than $10 million. In the first round of appeals the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest on top of the $10 million award from the date the judgment until it was paid in full. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court which awarded 8% interest on the $10 million for the four years the appeal was pending which added another $3 million to the award. The trial court then added another 3% interest on the additional $3 million from the date of the judgment until the $3 million was paid. On appeal again, this Decision held that the trial court had full discretion to award anything between 0% and 10% interest for post-judgment interest. It does not matter that interest rates and T-bill rates are at historic lows. A trial court may consider other investment vehicles that the plaintiff may have utilized with a potential higher rate of return so long as the 10% cap is not exceeded. While it may make sense to tie the interest rate into what the current average rates are….that is something only the legislature can do. Thus the 8% was OK.
The Decision did say that any interest on the $3 million can only start to run from the remand decision of the trial court (not from the original judgment) because only then did it become due.
The facts and holdings of any case may be redacted, paraphrased or condensed for ease of reading. No summary can be an exact rendering of any decision, however, so interested readers are referred to the full decisions. The docket number of each case is a hyperlink to the Connecticut Judicial Department online slip opinion. Copyright 2015 Pullman & Comley, LLC. All Rights Reserved.Back to Top