Cases

Sebastian v. Gaddis

The Superior Court of Connecticut ruled that a defendant’s apportionment complaint was legally insufficient when it alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of a motor vehicle that fled the scene, and whose driver was unidentified, but where they identified the vehicle. The defendant was sued for rear-ending the plaintiff and the defendant alleged that the vehicle in front of the plaintiff, identified only as a “Terminex Truck”, stopped short and was the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the defendant filed an apportionment complaint. In order for an apportionment against a plaintiff’s insurance company for an uninsured motorist claim to be viable, the tortfeasor must be unidentifiable. Unable to identify the driver, who left the scene, the defendant’s identification only as “the Terminex Truck” was deemed enough for the court to find that the defendant’s apportionment complaint was not viable. Notably, the court ruled that if the driver of the Terminex truck was not identifiable after further investigation, that an apportionment complaint may be viable under these facts.