Summary
In Tri-State, the court itself raised the question of whether the case before it was a controversy ripe for adjudication. Tri-State was the defendant in a declaratory judgment action brought by its insurer concerning coverage for an injury to one of Tri-State's employees. Tri-State then commenced the case before the court, alleging that if there was no coverage, then the Ferguson defendants would be liable to it.
Summary of this case from Silk v. Cowles ConnellOpinion
No. X07 CV03 0080812S
September 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On February 26, 2003, Patrons Mutual Insurance Company ["Patrons"] commenced a declaratory judgment action [ Patrons Mutual v. Tri-State, Docket Number X07 CV03 0081221S] to determine whether or not coverage exists under a policy issued by Patrons to Tri-State Contracting, LLC ["Tri-State"] for a work-related claim by one of Tri-State's employees. On February 28, 2003, Tri-State filed this five-count complaint against Ferguson McGuire alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent failure to supervise, claiming damages "to the extent Patrons Mutual succeeds in its declaratory judgment action." [ see paragraph 8 of each of the five counts of the complaint] The court, sua sponte, raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction based on ripeness. The parties filed briefs, and the court heard argument on this issue on August 4, 2003.
In order to meet the criteria for ripeness, there must exist an actual controversy between the parties, the matter in controversy must be capable of being adjudicated by the judicial power and the determination of the controversy must result in practical relief to the complainant. "In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement `to prevent courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements'; (internal quotation marks omitted) Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 144, 788 A.2d 1158 (2002); we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." Milford Power Co. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 263 Conn. 616, 626 (2003).
Tri-State alleges that if the court finds in the declaratory judgment action that it wasn't covered by the policy issued by Patrons, then the lack of coverage resulted from some act or omission of Ferguson McGuire. The plaintiff presents a three-prong argument opposing dismissal of this action. The plaintiff first argues that because the defendant does not dispute ripeness, the court has jurisdiction over the case. This argument is flawed as it is well-settled that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by any party and can be raised at any stage in the proceedings. Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 485 (2003).
The plaintiff next argues that its claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations which would expire if it is not allowed to file its claims now. Essentially, the plaintiff argues that it would be unfair if it were required to wait for the declaratory judgment action to be decided before it could raise the present claims, which only arise if the declaratory judgment action is decided unfavorably. While the court recognizes that this may be so, that does not, in itself, confer upon the court jurisdiction to hear this matter. On occasion the legislature may enact statutes of limitation that bar an action even before it accrues. Gabrielle v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 33 Conn. App. 378, 384 (1994).
Finally, the plaintiff suggests that even if the matter is premature, the court should enter a stay of this action until the declaratory judgment action is decided. However, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter on its merits, it also has no jurisdiction to stay this matter.
The court finds that there is no present controversy between Tri-State and Ferguson McGuire. No controversy will arise between these two parties until or unless the declaratory judgment action is resolved in the favor of Patrons. This may never happen. As there is no present controversy between Tri-State and Ferguson McGuire, there is no issue for the court to adjudicate, and there is no practical relief affordable to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim for want of ripeness. The case is dismissed.
Sferrazza, J.