Connecticut’s Supreme Court has confirmed insurers can seek contribution from co-defendants after paying out product liability claims, clarifying recovery rights statewide.
The case stemmed from an incident during an acupuncture session, when a heat lamp manufactured by Health Body World Supply, Inc. (HBWS) made contact with Judith Kissel’s foot, causing injury. Kissel first brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Reed Wang, who performed the session, and later filed a product liability claim against HBWS. Dr. Wang filed a third-party complaint against HBWS, alleging that the manufacturer should be liable for any damages, but withdrew this complaint before the case went to the jury.
Despite the withdrawal, the jury was asked to determine the comparative responsibility of all parties. The jury found HBWS 80% responsible and Dr. Wang 20% responsible, awarding Kissel $1 million in damages. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.
On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment against Dr. Wang on the medical malpractice claim for lack of personal jurisdiction but affirmed the product liability judgment against HBWS. After the Connecticut Supreme Court denied further review and all appellate proceedings concluded, HBWS and its insurer, Landmark American Insurance Company, paid Kissel $1.2 million, covering the judgment, costs, and interest.
HBWS and Landmark then sought to recover 20% of the amount paid from Dr. Wang, reflecting the jury’s allocation of responsibility. Dr. Wang argued that he was not a proper party under the Connecticut Product Liability Act and that the contribution action was untimely.
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected Dr. Wang’s arguments. The Court held that all defendants in an action involving a product liability claim may be subject to comparative responsibility, regardless of whether they are named in the product liability count at the time of the verdict. The Court also clarified that the one-year period for bringing a contribution action begins after the conclusion of all appellate proceedings, not at the time of the trial court’s judgment.
While the ruling focused on statutory rights rather than policy wording, it sets important ground rules for insurers seeking recovery from other liable parties. The decision provides practical clarity for claims teams, risk managers, and legal counsel handling complex liability matters in Connecticut.
