The Exclusive Remedy Rule in Connecticut

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Connecticut, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured “arising out of and in the course of employment.”

This means that employers are immune to their employees’ tort lawsuits. Employees cannot sue their employers for negligence, personal injury, emotional distress, etc. over their work-related injuries. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284(a).

INTENTIONAL TORT EXCEPTION

If an employer intentionally causes the injury, the exclusive remedy rule does not protect the employer from the injured worker’s tort claim. 

To act intentionally, the employer must  have either:

1. Intended to injure the employee; or 
2. Intentionally created a hazardous condition which the employer knew would make injuries to the employee substantially certain.

Concerning the second option above, courts apply the “substantial certainty test.” Under that test, to show the employer intended to injure him, the worker has to establish that:

• The employer intentionally engaged in conduct;
• The employer knew injury was substantially certain to result; and
• The employer deliberately disregarded that knowledge.

In short, courts generally apply the intentional tort exception in rare cases where the employer’s act was designed to cause the resulting injury. It’s not enough to show that the employer knew or appreciated the risk. Nor is it sufficient to establish that the employer engaged in recklessness. 

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

This exception, which Connecticut courts rarely apply, involves the situation where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to that employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

Employees can still sue third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, negligent drivers) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury. When that occurs, the employer itself can then go after the third party to recover benefits that it paid the employee for the injury. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE

If the employer fails to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage, it loses the protection of the exclusive remedy rule and the employee may sue it in tort for damages. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284(b)

LAWSUITS AGAINST COWORKERS

Generally, an employee cannot sue his employer or a coworker in tort over a work-related injury. With respect to suing a coworker, however, there is a narrow exception where the injury was caused by:

• The coworker’s willful or malicious act or
• The coworkers’ negligent operation of a motor vehicle. 

FEDERAL STATUTORY LAWSUITS

Despite the exclusive remedy rule, employees may still bring lawsuits under the following statutes:

• Title VII (Discrimination)
• ADA (Disability rights)
• FMLA (Family/medical leave retaliation)
• Section 1983 (constitutional violations by public employers)

RECENT CASES

Gutierrez v. Hutchinson, Jr., No. FBT-CV22-6119390-S (Conn. Super. Ct. 01/26/24)

The employee seriously injured his hand while working for a tree‐service company. The injury occurred because he made contact with moving chains on a truck for hauling logs. He sued the employer and a fellow employee who was operating the truck in tort. The coworker argued that the exclusivity rule barred the lawsuit. The court agreed. It noted that Connecticut provides an exception to the rule under which an employee may sue a fellow employee if the injury was caused by the fellow employee’s operation of a vehicle. However, the court determined that operating the truck’s mechanism for removing trees did not constitute operation of a motor vehicle under the exception. Operation means, instead, “driving or movement of the vehicle itself or a circumstance resulting from the movement of the vehicle.”

Dusto v. Rogers Corp. et. al., 307 A.3d 274 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023).

The decedent worked for a company that allegedly sold items containing asbestos. He died from mesothelioma. His estate sued the employer, alleging that the company knew about the asbestos and failed to inform its employees. The company asked the court to throw out the case based on the exclusive remedy rule. The court refused. It pointed out that the employer was aware of risks and that 10 employees had previously filed asbestos-related claims against it. Further, the company failed to inform its employees of the risks of exposure to asbestos. “We agree with the plaintiff that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether her claims against Rogers satisfied the substantial certainty exception to the exclusivity provision of the act,” the court said. The court allowed the case to go forward.

To dig into exclusive remedy rules in Connecticut and across the country, head to Simply Research

Share This Article: