Douglas-Mellers v. Windsor Insurance Co., 22478

• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 26 March 2002
• Docket Number: 22478
• Parties: ENIAET AL. v. WINDSOR INSURANCE COMPANY22478 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Considered January 16

ENIA DOUGLAS-MELLERS ET AL.
v.
WINDSOR INSURANCE COMPANY

No. AC 22478

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Considered January 16
March 26, 2002

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Sheedy, J.)

Andrew H. Sharp, in support of the motion. James O. Gaston, in opposition.

Lavery, C. J., and Mihalakos and Dranginis, Js.

Dranginis, J.

Opinion

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order sustaining the defendant's objection to the acceptance of the attorney trial referee's report and revoking the reference to the referee. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not an appealable final judgment. We agree that the appeal is premature and grant the defendant's motion to dismiss.

On April 6, 1998, the plaintiffs, Enia Douglas-Mellers, Cynthia Reynolds and Sasha Hart, were involved in an automobile accident while driving in a vehicle insured by the defendant, Windsor Insurance Company. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant seeking damages under the uninsured motorist provisions of the insurance policy. The court referred the matter to an attorney trial referee, Dominick J. Rutigliano, who tried the case on June 22 and July 23, 2001. On August 8, 2001, the attorney trial referee filed a report with the court, along with a recommendation of an award of damages for the plaintiffs. The defendant filed an objection to the acceptance of the report on August 24, 2001. (FN1) On September 5, 2001, the court sustained the defendant's objection, revoked the reference to the attorney trial referee and ordered the matter to be placed on the court trial list. The plaintiffs subsequently filed motions for articulation and for reargument, which the court granted. On October 22, 2001, after reargument, the court sustained its previous ruling on the defendant's objection to the report.

On November 9, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an appeal from the court's order rejecting the attorney trial referee's report and revoking the reference to the referee. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. The sole issue now before us is whether an order of the trial court revoking the reference to an attorney trial referee and leaving the case to be disposed of in the trial court can be immediately appealed.

As a preliminary matter, we must first examine the procedures that govern matters heard by attorney trial referees as set forth in chapter nineteen of our rules of practice. Upon the consent of the appearing parties, the court may refer a non-jury case to an attorney trial referee for a trial. (FN2) Practice Book § 19-2A. Within 120 days after the completion of the trial, the attorney trial referee must file a report with the court, stating ''the facts found and the conclusions drawn therefrom''; Practice Book § 19-8 (a); and the report may be supplemented with ''a memorandum of decision including such matters as [the attorney trial referee] may deem helpful in the decision of the case . . . .'' Practice Book § 19-8 (b); see Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 503, 508 A.2d 415 (1986). A party may then file an objection to the court's acceptance of the report. Practice Book § 19-14. Under Practice Book § 19-17, the court has the authority to render judgment on the report or, if the court finds error, it must reject the report and refer the matter to the same or another attorney trial referee...