Fiorillo v. City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 42998 |
| Citation | 212 Conn.App. 291,275 A.3d 628 |
| Parties | Rudolph J. FIORILLO et al. v. CITY OF HARTFORD |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Williams, Jr., for the appellants-cross appellees (named plaintiff et al.).
Alexandra Lombardi, deputy corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Demar Osbourne, assistant corporation counsel, for the appellee-cross appellant (defendant).
Prescott, Alexander and Suarez, Js.
This appeal and cross appeal have their origin in a breach of contract action commenced in 1999 by a group of retired Hartford firefighters (original plaintiffs) regarding their health insurance benefits. The parties reached a settlement agreement in 2003 in which the defendant, the city of Hartford, agreed to provide the original plaintiffs with a health benefits package that included medical, prescription drug, and dental benefits listed in a plan from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem). The agreement provides that this package would not change without the plaintiffs’ written consent or a legislative mandate. The trial court, Cohn, J. , incorporated this settlement agreement into its July 15, 2003 judgment. In 2017, the plaintiffs1 filed a motion for contempt, alleging that the defendant had violated the court's judgment by replacing and/or changing the health benefits package administered by Anthem to a Cigna administered health insurance plan and by altering the prescription drug plan. The plaintiffs alleged that these changes occurred without their written consent.
On January 24, 2019, the court determined that the defendant had violated the 2003 judgment by changing the health insurance plan administrator from Anthem to Cigna and the prescription drug plan administrator from Anthem to CVS. In its May 14, 2019 order, the court found, however, that the defendant was not in contempt because the evidence demonstrated that all of the insurance claims of the plaintiffs made under the Cigna plan had been paid in a manner identical to the Anthem plan and, therefore, that the defendant had not wilfully violated the 2003 judgment. The plaintiffs appealed and the defendant cross appealed.
On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) improperly denied their motion for contempt and (2) effectively amended the 2003 judgment by incorporating the protocols submitted by the defendant.2 In its cross appeal, the defendant contends that the court incorrectly determined that it violated the 2003 judgment. We agree with the claim raised in the defendant's cross appeal and conclude that the court incorrectly determined that it violated the 2003 agreement. In the absence of a violation of the settlement agreement, there was no basis for a finding of contempt. As a result of this conclusion, we need not address the claims raised in the plaintiffs’ appeal, and affirm the judgment denying the motion for contempt.3
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. On February 3, 1999, the original plaintiffs, a group of Hartford firefighters4 who had retired from their employment with the defendant on or after January 1, 1993, commenced the present action. The complaint alleged that, prior to retiring, each of the original plaintiffs was a member of Local 760, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC (union). The union and the defendant were parties to a collective bargaining agreement.5 The original plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to certain health care benefits upon retirement pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement. They further alleged that the defendant violated the collective bargaining agreement by substituting, modifying and reducing their insurance benefits and coverages. The original plaintiffs sought a restoration of these health care benefits. In count two of the complaint, the original plaintiffs claimed that the defendant "substituted, modified and diminished health insurance benefits" on three additional occasions.
In 2003, the parties executed a settlement agreement, dated June 15, 2003, in order to resolve the 1999 action. Paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement requires the defendant to provide the original plaintiffs with certain medical benefits designated as A copy of the entire health insurance package was attached and made part of the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement stated that, for those retired firefighters who had reached the age of fifty-five, the defendant would provide the entire health care package at no cost. Upon reaching the age of sixty-five, the following occurred:
Paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement provides: "Except for the automatic inclusion of legislative mandates, the [defendant] agrees that it will not change or diminish in any way the entire health insurance package contained herein without the written consent of the [retired firefighter] or surviving spouse provided however, the plan is permitted to change for purposes of inclusion of new and improved medical procedures and medical procedures that replace obsolete medical procedures without the written consent of the [retired firefighter] or surviving spouse." On July 15, 2003, the court, following the parties’ joint motion, incorporated the settlement agreement into its judgment.
On January 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt. In that motion, they alleged that, without their written consent, the defendant unilaterally had replaced and/or changed the Anthem plan with a Cigna insurance plan (Cigna plan). The plaintiffs claimed that the switch to the Cigna plan diminished the benefits to which they were entitled. The plaintiffs further claimed that the defendant unilaterally had altered the prescription drug plan, which resulted in a diminishment of the benefits of their entire health insurance package. The plaintiffs requested that the defendant be "cited to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt for the violation and punished therefore." The plaintiffs also specifically requested that the defendant be compelled to reinstate the Anthem plan, including the prescription drug program, or, in the alternative, to provide them with a health insurance package that was the equivalent to the Anthem plan, subject to their written consent.
Judge Cohn held a hearing on October 22 and October 23, 2018. The named plaintiff, Rudolph J. Fiorillo, Jr., testified that following his retirement in 1994, a dispute arose with the defendant regarding his health insurance benefits. As a result, he and others filed a lawsuit in 1999. In 2003, the parties entered into the settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. Fiorillo testified regarding his involvement in the drafting of the settlement agreement and his understanding of the specific wording used in the agreement.
Richard Pokorski, the defendant's benefits administrator, testified that the defendant was a self-insured entity. Accordingly, the defendant ultimately bore the financial responsibility for all of the medical, dental and prescription medication costs of the plaintiffs for claims covered by the entire health insurance package. Pokorski testified that the defendant utilized insurance carriers, such as Anthem or Cigna, as third-party administrators for their contracts with health-care providers and to facilitate the various payments. Pokorski further testified that he was part of a committee that made a recommendation to the defendant's city council and mayor to switch from Anthem to Cigna in order to save money with regard to its health-care costs. This recommendation was endorsed and executed by the defendant's city council and mayor.
On January 24, 2019, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it set forth and applied the analytical framework for a contempt determination. See, e.g., In re Leah S. , 284 Conn. 685, 693–94, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). The court determined that the defendant had violated the clear and unambiguous language of paragraphs 2 and 5 of the settlement agreement, which had been incorporated into the 2003 judgment, by changing from the Anthem plan to the Cigna and CVS plans. The court specifically noted that the plaintiffs did not provide written consent to these changes. With respect to the second part of the contempt inquiry, including a consideration of whether the violations were wilful or excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding; see id., at 694, 935 A.2d 1021 ; the court noted that The court then continued the hearing for further proceedings on May 13 and 14, 2019. After the subsequent proceedings, the court issued a second memorandum of decision. In that...
To continue reading
Request your trial