RETURN DATE: JANUARY 19, 2021
`
`CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
`Plaintiff
`
`VS.
`
`SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
`SERVICES, INC., and
`STRUNK DODGE AIKEN & ZOVAS,
`Defendants
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`December 10, 2020
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Atall times herein alleged the plaintiff CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS,INC. (“CITY
`1.
`LINE”) was and is a Connecticut corporation that operates a food distribution company
`with headquarters located in West Haven, Connecticut.
`
`2.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
`
`SERVICES,INC. ("SEDGWICK") was and is a foreign corporation organized and
`
`existing underthe laws ofthe State ofIllinois that providesthird party administration
`
`services for workers' compensation claimsin the State of Connecticut.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant STRUNK DODGE AIKEN & ZOVAS
`3.
`LLC (“STRUNK”) wasandisa limited liability company organized and existing under the
`laws of the State of Connecticut that operates as a law firm and provides legai services
`
`in the State of Connecticut.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant SEDGWICKcontracted and agreed to
`4.
`provide third party administration services for workers’ compensation claims to the
`
`plaintiff CITY LINE.
`
`
`
`CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
`Plaintiff
`
`VS.
`
`SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
`SERVICES, INC., and
`STRUNK DODGE AIKEN & ZOVAS,
`Defendants
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`December 10, 2020
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Atall times herein alleged the plaintiff CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS,INC. (“CITY
`1.
`LINE”) was and is a Connecticut corporation that operates a food distribution company
`with headquarters located in West Haven, Connecticut.
`
`2.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
`
`SERVICES,INC. ("SEDGWICK") was and is a foreign corporation organized and
`
`existing underthe laws ofthe State ofIllinois that providesthird party administration
`
`services for workers' compensation claimsin the State of Connecticut.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant STRUNK DODGE AIKEN & ZOVAS
`3.
`LLC (“STRUNK”) wasandisa limited liability company organized and existing under the
`laws of the State of Connecticut that operates as a law firm and provides legai services
`
`in the State of Connecticut.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant SEDGWICKcontracted and agreed to
`4.
`provide third party administration services for workers’ compensation claims to the
`
`plaintiff CITY LINE.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant SEDGWICKowedtheplaintiff CITY
`
`LINE a fiduciary duty that is to say a duty of utmost goodfaith, trust, confidence, and
`candorto the plaintiff and a responsibility to the olaintif to act with the highest degree of
`
`honesty andloyalty.
`
`6.
`
`On or about March 3, 2013 a certain employee of the plaintiffs named Michael
`
`Fleurizard (“Fleurizard”) alleged he wasinjured in the course of his employmentwith the
`
`plaintiff CITY LINE and madea claim for workers compensation benefits.
`
`7.
`
`The defendant SEDGWICK undertook to provide third party administration
`
`services of that claim including investigating and defending that claim.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`Thereafter certain workers’ compensation benefits were paid to Fleurizard.
`The Fleurizard claim remains open and to this date and the defendant
`
`SEDGWICKhascontinued to administer that claim pursuant to its agreement with the
`
`plaintiff CITY LINE.
`
`10. Medical evaluations and imaging studies conducted incident to Fleurizard’s claim
`
`revealed Fleurizard had a old fracture at the tip of the radial styloid indicative of a
`
`condition that pre-dated the March 3, 2013 incident and that the ligamentous structures
`
`of his right wrist were intact, including the scapholunate ligament.
`
`11.
`
`Approximately 16 months after the March 3, 2013 incident further medical
`
`evaluations and imaging studies were conducted that revealed new anddifferent
`
`findings in Fleurizard’s right wrist including a tear of scaphoid ligament.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In the course of the pendencyof the workers’ compensation claim Fleurizard
`
`asserted these unrelated conditions and findings were related to and part of the open
`
`workers’ compensation claim arising out of the March 3, 2013 incident.
`
`13.
`
`The defendant SEDGWICK was under a duty to investigate and defend the claim
`
`that these new and different findings were related to and part of the open workers’
`
`compensation claim arising out of the March 3, 2013 incident.
`
`14.
`
`The defendant SEDGWICKdid not conduct a properinvestigation and defense
`
`and as a result that these new anddifferent findings became accepted as part of the
`
`open workers’ compensation claim arising out of the March 3, 2013 incident.
`
`15. Asa result of the defendant SEDGWICK’s failure properly to conduct a proper
`
`investigation and defense the plaintiff became obligated to pay benefits for which it was
`
`not responsible under the Connecticut workers compensation laws.
`
`16. Asa resuit of becoming obligated to pay such benefits the plaintiff has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer damages and financial losses.
`
`17.
`
`The plaintiff's damages andfinancial losseswere caused by the negligence of the
`
`defendant SEDGWICKincluding its employees, agents, apparent agents, and servants
`in the following ways:
`|
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`It failed to investigate the Fleurizard claim in a proper manner;
`
`It failed to defend the Fleurizard claim in a proper manner;
`
`It failed to recognize that Fleurizard had sustained a new anddifferent injury
`
`unrelated to the March 4, 2013 incident:
`
`
`
`d.
`
`It failed to hire and engage medical consultants to support the defense that
`
`Fleurizard had sustained a new anddifferent injury unrelated to the March4,
`
`2013 incident;
`
`e.
`
`In proceedings before the Workers Compensation Bureauit failed to object to
`
`and resist Fleurizard’s claim that the new anddifferentinjury was related to
`
`the March 4, 2013 incident:
`
`f.
`
`It failed to establish and coordinate with the defendant STRUNK a defense
`
`strategy directed at objecting to and resisting Fleurizard’s claim that the new
`
`and different injury was related to the March 4, 2013 incident; and
`
`g.
`
`It failed to disclose to the plaintiff that it had not properly objected to and
`
`resisted Fleurizard’s claim that the new and different injury was related to the
`
`March 4, 2013 incident.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`1.-17. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges as paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT TWO
`
`paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT ONEwith the sameforce and effect as if actually
`
`set forth herein
`
`18.
`
`The defendant SEDGWICKbreached andviolatedits fiduciary duty to the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`19.
`
`The plaintiff's injuries and losses were caused by the defendant SEDGWICK's
`
`breachofits fiduciary as hereinbefore alleged.
`
`
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`1,-17. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges as paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT
`
`THREE paragraphs 1 through 17 of COUNT ONE with the sameforce and effectasif
`
`actually set forth herein
`
`18.
`
`The defendant SEDGWICK’s acts and omissions as hereinbefore alleged
`
`constituted a breachif its contract with the plaintiff
`
`19.
`
`The plaintiff's injuries and losses were causedby the defendant SEDGWICK’s
`
`breachofits contract as hereinbefore alleged.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`
`1.-12. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges as paragraphs 1 through 12 of COUNT
`
`THREE paragraphs 1 through 12 of COUNT ONE with the same force and effect as if
`
`actually set forth herein
`
`The defendant STRUNK contracted, agreed, and undertook to provide legal
`13.
`services to the plaintiff in connection with the defense of the Fleurizard claim and the
`
`reiationship of attorney and client was thereby created.
`
`14.
`
`The defendant STRUNK was undera duty to investigate and defend the claim
`
`that these new and different findings were related to and part of the open workers’
`
`compensation claim arising out of the March 3, 2013 incident.
`
`15.
`
`The defendant STRUNKdid not conduct a properinvestigation and defense and
`
`as a result that these new anddifferent findings became accepted as part of the open
`
`workers’ compensation claim arising out of the March 3, 2013 incident.
`
`
`
`16. Asa result of the defendant STRUNK'’sfailure properly to conduct a proper
`
`investigation and defensetheplaintiff became obligated to pay benefits for which it was
`
`not responsible under the Connecticut workers compensation laws.
`
`17.
`
`As aresult of becoming obligated to pay such benefits the plaintiff has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer damages and financial losses.
`
`18.
`
`‘Theplaintiff's injuries and losses were caused by the negligence of the defendant
`
`STRUNK including its employees, agents, apparent agents, and servantsin the
`
`following ways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`it failed to investigate the Fleurizard claim in a proper manner:
`
`It failed to defend the Fleurizard claim in a proper manner;
`
`it failed to recognize that Fleurizard had sustained a new anddifferent injury
`
`unrelated to the March 4, 2013 incident:
`
`.
`
`It failed to hire and engage medical consultants to support the defense that
`
`Fleurizard had sustained a new anddifferentinjury unrelated to the March 4,
`
`2013 incident;
`
`In proceedings before the Workers Compensation Bureauit failed to object to
`
`and resist Fleurizard’s claim that the new anddifferentinjury was related to
`
`the March 4, 2013 incident; and
`
`it failed to establish and coordinate with the defendant SEDGWICKa defense
`
`strategy directed at objecting to and resisting Fleurizard’s claim that the new
`
`and differentinjury was related to the March 4, 2013 incident: and
`
`
`
`COUNT FIVE
`
`1.-18. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges as paragraphs 1 through 18 of COUNT FIVE
`
`paragraphs 1 through 18 of COUNT FOURwith the sameforce and effect asif actually
`
`set forth herein
`
`19.
`
`At all times herein alleged the defendant STRUNK including its employees,
`
`agents, apparent agents, and servants owed theplaintiff CITY LINE a fiduciary duty that
`
`is to say a duty of utmost goodfaith, trust, confidence, and candorto theplaintiff and a
`
`responsibility to the plaintiff to act with the highest degree of honesty and loyalty.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The defendant STRUNKbreached andviolatedits fiduciary duty to the plaintiff.
`
`Theplaintiff's injuries and losses were causedby the defendant STRUNK’s
`
`breachofits fiduciary as hereinbefore alleged.
`
`COUNT SIX
`
`1.-18. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges as paragraphs 1 through 18 of COUNT SIX
`paragraphs 1 through 18 of COUNT FOUR with the sameforce andeffectas if actually
`
`set forth herein
`
`19.
`
`The defendant STRUNK’s acts and omissions as hereinbefore alleged
`
`constituted a breachif its contract with theplaintiff
`
`20.
`
`‘Theplaintiffs injuries and losses were caused by the defendant STRUNK’s
`
`breach ofits contract as hereinbefore alleged.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands upon Defendants:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`G.
`
`actual, compensatory and statutory damages:
`
`pre and post-judgmentinterest as allowed by law:
`
`an award of attorneys’ fees as allowed by law:
`
`. an award of taxable costs; and
`
`any and ail such furtherrelief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
` By:
`
`i
`Patrick J. Filan
`Law Offices of Patrick J. Filan PC
`One Eliot Place
`Fairfield, Connecticut 06824
`Telephone (203) 221-8066
`Facsimile:
`(203) 221-8068
`Email: pfilan@filan-law.com
`
`
`
`RETURN DATE:
`
`JANUARY19, 2021
`
`CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
`Plaintiff
`
`Vs.
`
`SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
`SERVICES, INC., and
`STRUNK DODGE AIKEN & ZOVAS
`Defendants
`
`|
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`December 10, 2020
`
`AMOUNTIN DEMAND
`
`This is to certify that plaintiff CITY LINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.through the
`
`foregoing action, seeks to recover damagesin excessof Fifteen Thousand dollars
`
`($15,000.00), exclusive of any interest or costs.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`By:
`Patrick. Filan
`Law Offices of Patrick J. Filan, LLC
`One Eliot Place
`Fairfield, Connecticut 06824
`Telephone (203) 221-8066
`Facsimile: (203) 221-8068
`Email: pfilan@filan-law.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
