Opinion
No. CV07 500 22 85S
June 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
The plaintiffs, Michael and Kristeena McDonough, have objected to the Motion to Intervene dated February 5, 2007 filed by Little, Inc.
Little, Inc. filed its Motion to Intervene pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31-293 which, in pertinent part, provides:
If the employee, the employer or the custodian of the Second Injury Fund brings an action against such person, he shall immediately notify the others, in writing, by personal presentation or by registered or certified mail, of the action and of the name of the court to which the writ is returnable, and the others may join as parties plaintiff in the action within thirty days after such notification, and, if the others fail to join as parties plaintiff, their right of action against such person shall abate.
Here, the plaintiffs contend that they notified the employer of the commencement of the action by letter dated December 13, 2006 by certified mail and that Little, Inc. failed to file its Motion to Intervene within the required 30-day time-frame.
It is undisputed that notice was not sent to Little, Inc., but rather was sent to the insurance carrier, The Phoenix Insurance Company. It is clear that General Statutes § 31-293 does not provide that notice may be served on an employer's insurance carrier in lieu of serving notice on an employer. Misiurka v. Maple Hill Farms, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 381, 384, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 813 (1988). Insurance carriers are not equivalent to employers for purposes of notice under the statute. Reichert v. Sheridan, 34 Conn.App. 521, 525-26 (1994).
"Failure to notify an employer of pending litigation pursuant to General Statutes 31-293 allows an employer to enter the action at any point in the proceedings." Misiurka v. Maple Hill Farms, Inc., supra, 15 Conn.App. at 385 citing Lakewood Metal Products, Inc. v. Capital Machine Switch Co., 154 Conn. 708, 710 (1967).
Additionally, notice pursuant to the statute must inform the recipient of the consequences of inaction pursuant to the abatement provision if the recipient does not move to intervene within 30 days of such notification. Worsham v. Greifenberger, 242 Conn. 432, 440-41 (1997). In the present case, the notice did not so inform the recipient.
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs' Objection to the Motion to Intervene is overruled. The Motion to Intervene is granted.
So ordered.