Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU
Document 132
Filed 04/17/2006
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOSEPH ATTIAS & HAIM ATTIAS VS. PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03 CV 01009 (SRU) APRIL 13, 2006
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT TRIAL MEMORANDUM The defendant, Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut, upon review of the plaintiffs' list of witnesses, has identified additional evidentiary issues and hereby supplements the parties' Joint Trial Memorandum by identifying the following additional evidentiary issues. 4. The defendant anticipates that the plaintiffs will offer testimony from
Mr. Ranciato as set forth in the plaintiffs' designation of witnesses and will offer Mr. Ranciato to testify "in regards to the proper determination of the value of the plaintiffs' claim, actual cash value and replacement cost, as well as the information that is material to that determination." The defendant will object to Mr. Ranciato's testimony as to the proper determination of actual cash value. The law in Connecticut is well-settled that policies of
SR/240831/bsw
Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU
Document 132
Filed 04/17/2006
Page 2 of 4
insurance are contracts, and the interpretation of insurance contracts are matters of law for the court. See Memorandum attached hereto. 5. The defendant also anticipates that Mr. Ranciato may offer to testify that the
plaintiffs are entitled to replacement cost value without the need to rebuild or replace the premises. Said testimony is objectionable and should be excluded as it expresses an opinion of law which is directly contrary to the prior ruling of the court in this matter. 6. The plaintiffs have also disclosed Joseph Citino to testify concerning the
contract to rebuild the premises. The defendant will object to this testimony based on the court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not entitled to replacement cost of the premises if the premises have not been rebuilt. 7. The plaintiffs have identified in the Joint Trial Memorandum that the
defendant was "unjustly enriched." The defendant objects to evidence or claims of unjust enrichment as any such claim was not alleged in the complaint or heretofore disclosed. 8. The plaintiffs have identified in its Request to Charge IV several components
of damages for which the plaintiffs claim they are entitled as a result of the alleged breach of contract. Since the insurance contract provides only for the payment of money to compensate for certain specified losses, there can be no claim for "liquidated damages"
-2-
Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU
Document 132
Filed 04/17/2006
Page 3 of 4
and/or "consequential damages" and/or "incidental damages." The defendant will file a brief in support of said objection. 9. The plaintiffs, in Requests to Charge VII and VIII, make a similar request for
consequential and incidental damages including the claim for architect's fees, attorney's fees, litigation costs, and the public adjuster's fee. Said damages are not recoverable as part of the insurance contract. The defendant will file a brief in support of said objection. 10. The plaintiffs' Request to Charge IX claims unjust enrichment. The
defendant objects to this claim. Where there is an express contract, there can be no claim for unjust enrichment. Furthermore, said claim has not been made in the plaintiffs' complaint. DEFENDANT, PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
By____________/s/___________________ Joel J. Rottner Skelley Rottner P.C. Corporate Center West, Suite 305 433 South Main Street West Hartford, Connecticut 06110 Tel. (860) 561-7077 Fax (860) 561-7088 Federal Bar No. ct ct05612
-3-
Case 3:03-cv-01009-SRU
Document 132
Filed 04/17/2006
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on April 13, 2006, to the following counsel of record: Attorney Cheryl E. Heffernan Farver & Heffernan 2858 Old Dixwell Avenue Hamden, CT 06518 Tel. (203) 288-8266
/s/ Joel J. Rottner
-4-