Ilchenko v. Orellana-Ventura, Docket No. HHD-CV19-6106635S, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2846 (Oct. 30, 2019)

Connecticut court strikes complaint seeking “inconvenience” damages as the result of car accident.

The plaintiff, the owner of a 2017 Tesla Model X, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the defendant’s vehicle. Although the plaintiff did not suffer a bodily injury, his vehicle sustained significant damage and costly repairs. Alleging that the other driver involved was responsible for the collision, the plaintiff sued both the driver and the driver's employer, seeking compensation not only for the Tesla's repair costs, diminished value and his temporary loss of use of the car, but also for his additional "inconvenience" costs, described as the lost time and annoyance he suffered in having to deal with the aftermath of the accident, including making accident claims and arranging car repairs.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's allegation of "inconvenience" damages and accompanying prayer for relief. The court granted the motion, holding that Connecticut law does not recognize a claim for inconvenience damages. The court further concluded that, even if the plaintiff had alternatively framed his claim as one for emotional distress damages, it would still be insufficient. Connecticut does not recognize claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of situations resulting in property damage alone, as was the case here.

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.