Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JAMES BRULE ET AL. v. NERAC, INC., ET AL. (AC 31834)
DiPentima, C. J., and Bear and Stoughton, Js. Argued December 1, 2010--officially released March 15, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, Shapiro, J.) Francis G. Gleason, Jr., for the appellants (named plaintiff et al.). Victoria Woodin Chavey, with whom was Stacy Smith Walsh, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

STOUGHTON, J. The plaintiffs, James Brule, Stephen Warner and Dawn Wynkoop, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Nerac, Inc. (Nerac), and five individual employees1 of Nerac (individual defendants), following the court's granting of the defendants' motion to strike. The plaintiffs, former employees of Nerac, commenced this action against the defendants following the termination of their employment.2 On appeal, they claim that the court (1) improperly concluded that Warner's contract based claims were insufficient as a matter of law and (2) improperly concluded that the individual defendants did not owe the plaintiffs a legal duty. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, taken as true and construed in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency; see Greenfield v. Reynolds, 122 Conn. App. 465, 466, 1 A.3d 125, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 922, 4 A.3d 1226 (2010); asserts the following facts. Nerac, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tolland, employed each of the plaintiffs for a period of time before they were terminated from their employment. Brule held the position of advisor and was terminated on February 6, 2007. Warner served as a business unit director

Download Brule v. Nerac, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law