Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

1,778 chars

The plaintiff contends that we should follow the
       approach of the Superior Court in Matthews v. Dept.
       of Public Safety, supra, 56 Conn. L. Rptr. 262. In Mat-
       thews, the court analyzed the language of § 31-51q and
       determined that the question of whether a plaintiff must
       plead a lack of substantial interference ‘‘revolves
       around the impact of the term ‘provided’ in the text of
       the [statute].’’ Id., 267. Applying principles of statutory
       construction, the court determined that the clause in
       § 31-51q regarding noninterference was a proviso,
       rather than an exception, and, therefore, the defendant
       bore the burden of raising the issue of interference as
       a special defense. Id., 267–68. Specifically, the court
       explained: ‘‘Clauses introduced by provided are fairly
       called a proviso or exception. Although they have some-
       times been used interchangeably, there are some differ-
       ences between a proviso and an exception. As a matter
       of form, the proviso is usually part of a section estab-
       lishing a general rule, the proviso being an added
       clause limiting the operation of the rule and being
       introduced by the word provided or the words pro-
       vided, however. . . . The operative effect of provisos
       and exceptions have sometimes been differentiated.
       For example, one who asserts a claim based upon a
       statute must [negate], in pleadings and proofs, any
       exceptions in the provision on which the claim is based,
       whereas [a] matter in a proviso can be left for the
       adversary as a defensive matter. . . . Provisos serve
Page 28                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text