D'Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DANIEL D AMICO v. ACE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL. (SC 18678) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella and Bear, Js. Argued January 4 officially released March 12, 2013 Jennifer B. Levine, with whom was Harvey L. Levine, for the appellant (plaintiff). A. Richard Feldman, pro hac vice, with whom, on the brief, were Philip T. Newbury, Jr., and Jeffrey E. Potter, for the appellee (named defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Daniel D Amico, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court s grant of summary judgment in favor of the named defendant, ACE Financial Solutions, Inc.2 D Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc., 122 Conn. App. 230, 997 A.2d 642 (2010). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the exclusionary provision of General Statutes § 31284 (a),3 as construed by our decision in DeOliveira v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 487, 870 A.2d 1066 (2005), barred the plaintiff s contract and tort claims4 arising from the handling of the plaintiff s workers compensation claim by the defendant, an independent third party that had assumed responsibility for a number of state employees workers compensation claims pursuant to a loss portfolio arrangement.5 D Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc., supra, 231 33. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 We granted the plaintiff s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the exclusionary provision in General Statutes § 31-284 (a) barring actions by employees against their employers in workers compensation claims immunizes independent third parties? D Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc., 298 Conn. 911, 4 A.3d 830 (2010). 2 See footnote 5 of this opinion. 3 General Statutes § 31-284 (a) provides: An employer who complies with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section shall not be liable for any action for damages on account of personal injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment or on account of death resulting from personal injury so sustained, but an employer shall secure compensation for his employees as provided under this chapter, except that compensation shall not be paid when the personal injury has been caused by the wilful and serious misconduct of the injured employee or by his intoxication. All rights and claims between an employer who complies with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section and employees, or any representatives or dependents of such employees, arising out of personal injury or death sustained in the course of employment are abolished other than rights and claims given by this chapter, provided nothing in this section shall prohibit any employee from securing, by agreement with his employer, additional compensation from his employer for the injury or from enforcing any agreement for additional compensation. 4 In his complaint against the defendant, the plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq. and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. See D Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc., supra, 122 Conn. App. 231. 5 Berkley Administrators of Connecticut (Berkley), who administered the workers compensation claims as a third party administrator on the named defendant s behalf, was also named as a defendant in the plaintiff s complaint; the plaintiff asserted against Berkley claims of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. See footnote 4 of this opinion; D Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions, Inc., supra, 122 Conn. App. 233. Thereafter, the trial court granted Berkley s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. That appeal was then transferred to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and consolidated with this certified appeal for purposes of oral argument and decision as docket number SC 18795. We, however, subsequently granted Berkley s motion and dismissed that appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 851, prior to the argument of this certified appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
