The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. v. Kuehl

• Decision Date: 05 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. 18387.,18387.
• Citation: 299 Conn. 800,12 A.3d 852
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: The ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.v.Sylvia N. KUEHL et al.

299 Conn. 800

12 A.3d 852

The ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.

v.Sylvia N. KUEHL et al.

No. 18387.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 19, 2010.Decided Jan. 5, 2011.*

Proloy K. Das, with whom were John R. Downey and, on the brief, Anne C. Dranginis, Hartford, for the appellants (intervening defendants).Jason M. Dodge, Glastonbury, with whom was Courtney S. Stabnick, for the appellee (plaintiff).KATZ, PALMER, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and R. ROBINSON, Js.McLACHLAN, J.

This appeal requires us to consider the narrow question of whether a respondent in a workers' compensation action, prior to the completion of proceedings before the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner), may bring a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute on which a claimant relies to confer jurisdiction on the commissioner. The intervening defendants, Rosalind J. Koskoff and Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder, P.C., appeal ¹ from the trial court's summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly known as Travelers Insurance Company, the respondent in the underlying action before the commissioner. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to declare General Statutes § 31–294c (d) unconstitutional.² In support of their claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the defendants contend that the plaintiff lacks standing and that the claim is not ripe for review because the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The defendants raise no claims challenging the trial court's decision on the merits. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is not the first time that we consider an appeal arising from a workers' compensation claim for survivor's benefits brought by the named defendant, Sylvia N. Kuehl, the claimant in the underlying action before the commissioner. In Kuehl v. Z–Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., 265 Conn. 525, 527–29, 829 A.2d 818 (2003), we set forth the following underlying facts and procedure pertinent to the present appeal. “[Kuehl] is the widow and sole presumptive dependent of Guenther Kuehl (decedent). The decedent was the president and sole shareholder of [Z–Loda Systems Engineering, Inc. (Z–Loda Systems) ], and [Kuehl] was its secretary and treasurer.

“On June 26, 1991, the decedent suffered personal injuries in an automobile accident that, according to the decedent, had occurred in the course of his employment. As a result of the decedent's injuries, [Kuehl] assumed the day-to-day management of Z–Loda Systems in October, 1991. On December 16, 1991, the decedent filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation benefits. On January 21, 1992, Z–Loda Systems and the [plaintiff], Z–Loda Systems' workers' compensation insurance carrier, filed a notice contesting the decedent's claim in accordance with § 31–294c (b).... To date, the decedent's claim has not been resolved and no benefits have been paid in connection therewith.

“On November 1, 1992, the decedent and [Kuehl] initiated a third party action against the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the June 26, 1991 accident. On November 14, 1992, the decedent died as a result of an aortic aneurysm. Thereafter, [Kuehl], in her capacity as executrix of the decedent's estate, was substituted for the decedent in the third party action. Subsequently, [Kuehl] amended the complaint (amended complaint) in the third party action to allege that the decedent's aortic aneurysm was a consequence of the injuries that the decedent had sustained in the automobile accident.” Id. The defendants in the present action represented Kuehl in that third party action. Kuehl v. Koskoff, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford–Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV–99–0171076–S, 2007 WL 969581 (March 19, 2007) (43 Conn. L. Rptr. 98).

“[Kuehl] sent a copy of the amended complaint to Z–Loda Systems in May, 1993. After receiving the amended complaint, Z–Loda Systems moved to intervene in the third party action. In its motion to intervene, Z–Loda Systems asserted, inter alia, that, ‘[b]y virtue of the Workers' Compensation Act [act] ... [Z–Loda Systems] may become obligated to pay large sums to the estate of [the decedent] and/or to [Kuehl]....’

“On July 22, 1998, [Kuehl] requested a hearing on her claim for survivor's benefits notwithstanding her failure to file a timely notice of claim for compensation in accordance with § 31–294c (a).³ The commissioner conducted a hearing on [Kuehl's] claim on August 31, 1998. In connection with that hearing, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits. The parties also submitted a joint issue for consideration, namely, ‘[w]hether, based upon the facts, [Kuehl] ... should be precluded from pursuing a [survivor's] benefits claim under ... [General Statutes] § 31–306 due to the fact that she did not file a formal notice of claim within the statute of limitations period established under ... § 31–294c (a), which would have been one year from the date of [the decedent's] death—November 14, 1993.’

“[Kuehl] proffered three reasons why her failure to file a notice of claim for compensation in accordance with § 31–294c (a) was not fatal to her claim for survivor's benefits. First, [she] maintained that the amended complaint, a copy of which [she] sent to Z–Loda Systems in May, 1993, constituted sufficient notice of [her] claim for survivor's benefits under § 31–294c (a). In support of this claim, [Kuehl] underscored the fact that Z–Loda Systems expressly noted in its motion to intervene that it ‘may become obligated to pay large sums to the estate of [the decedent] and/or to [Kuehl]....’ On the basis of this allegation by Z–Loda Systems, [Kuehl] maintained that Z–Loda Systems had actual notice that she was seeking survivor's benefits, thereby rendering technical compliance with § 31–294c (a) unnecessary.

“Second, [Kuehl] asserted that the notice requirements contained in § 31–294c (a) were satisfied under the particular circumstances of this case because knowledge of her intent to seek survivor's benefits should be imputed to Z–Loda Systems in light of the fact that she was managing Z–Loda Systems at the time of the decedent's death. Finally, [Kuehl] argued that her failure to file a notice of claim for compensation did not preclude her from obtaining survivor's benefits in light of § 31–294c (c), which enumerates certain circumstances under which the failure to file a notice of claim for compensation or under which the filing of a defective or inaccurate notice of claim for compensation will not bar a claimant from obtaining benefits under § 31–306(a). The commissioner disagreed with [Kuehl], however, and concluded that [her] failure to file a notice of claim for compensation in accordance with § 31–294c (a) precluded her claim for survivor's benefits.

“[Kuehl] appealed from the decision of the commissioner to the [workers' compensation review board (board) ], which affirmed the commissioner's decision.” Kuehl v. Z–Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., supra, 265 Conn. at 529–32, 829 A.2d 818. In affirming the decision of the board on appeal, we recognized that “[i]t is well established ... that a notice of claim or the satisfaction of one of the ... exceptions [contained in § 31–294c (c) ] is a prerequisite that conditions whether the commission[ er] has subject matter jurisdiction under the [ act ].” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 534, 829 A.2d 818. We concluded, therefore, that Kuehl's failure to file the notice of claim within the time limit specified in § 31–294c (a) deprived the commissioner of subject matter jurisdiction. Id., at 534–35, 829 A.2d 818.

Subsequently, Kuehl brought an action against the defendants for legal malpractice, claiming that they had failed to advise her that in order for the commissioner to have jurisdiction pursuant to the act, she was required to file a notice of claim for survivor's benefits within one year from the decedent's death. The defendants have alleged, both within the legal malpractice action, and in the present action, that they had arrived at an oral settlement agreement with Kuehl, whereby the defendants would seek to have § 31–294c amended to create an exception to the statute of limitations in § 31–294c (a), in order to allow Kuehl “and others” to refile her claim for survivor's benefits. In accordance with that agreement, the defendants proposed an amendment to the statute. The amendment was adopted by the legislature; Public Acts 2005, No. 05–230, § 2; and is now codified at § 31–294c (d), which provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a dependent or dependents of a deceased employee seeking compensation under section 31–306 who was barred by a final judgment in a court of law from filing a claim arising out of the death of the deceased employee, whose date of injury was between June 1, 1991, and June 30, 1991, and whose date of death was between November 1, 1992, and November 30, 1992, because of the failure of the dependent to timely file a separate death benefits claim, shall be allowed to file a written notice of claim for compensation not later than one year after July 8, 2005, and the commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine such dependent's claim.”

On August 17, 2005, Kuehl filed a notice of claim with the commissioner, seeking survivor's benefits. The plaintiff contested the claim, arguing that this court's decision in Kuehl v. Z–Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., supra, 265 Conn. at 525, 829 A.2d 818, barred Kuehl's new claim because § 31–294c (d), which would have allowed Kuehl to circumvent the effect of that decision, is an unconstitutional emolument. Because the commissioner agreed with the plaintiff, he did not allow the claim to proceed and advised the plaintiff to bring the present action challenging the...