Opinion
No. CV 02 0470849 S
May 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On November 5, 2002, a one-count complaint was filed by the plaintiff, Cecelia Schuster, against the defendants, the board of education of Amity Regional School District #5, Rolfe Wenner, Santo Galatioto, Steven Ledewitz, Michael Lohne, Angelo Dirienzo and Russell Faroni. The plaintiff alleges that while employed as a teacher by the defendant board of education at Amity High School she was exposed to mold, fungi and other hazardous conditions intentionally created by the defendants. The plaintiff now seeks damages as a result.
On January 6, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint, accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law. On January 17, 2003, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition.
"A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766, 771, 802 A.2d 44 (2002). In ruling on a motion to strike, the trial court may consider only those grounds raised in the motion. Blancato v. Feldspar Corp. 203 Conn. 34, 44, 522 A.2d 1235 (1987).
The defendants move to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the sole ground that the plaintiff "[fails] to circumvent the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act." The ground upon which the defendants move to strike the complaint is improper.
In Ramos v. Branford, 63 Conn. App. 671, 675, 778 A.2d 972 (2001), the Appellate Court noted that the trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike two counts of the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act because the proper procedural vehicle for raising the defense is by way of a special defense. See also Bourne v. Mori Seiki USA, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 01 0382138 (July 12, 2002, Gallagher, J.) (denying the defendant's motion to strike because the defense of exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Act is improperly raised in a motion to strike and should be raised by way of a special defense); Allison v. Silverlieb, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. CV 0328526 (November 12, 1996, Leheny, J.) ( 20 Conn.L.Rptr. 616) (same).
Based on the foregoing, the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint is denied because the defense of exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-284, must be pleaded by way of a special defense rather than raised in a motion to strike
Gilardi, J.