Joan Mazzaia, Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Mazzaia et al v. A.O.Smith Corp. et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE FIDUCIARY AS PLAINTIFF (Motion # 374.00)

The plaintiff, Joan Mazzaia, the personal representative of the estate of Donald Mazzaia, alleges that the decedent, Donald Mazzaia, was exposed to various asbestos-containing products while he worked in the United States Navy during the years 1959 to 1963, and that he also suffered exposure from 1963 to 1979 while working in various capacities at General Dynamics/Electric Boat and Pfizer Corp. Generally, the plaintiff's sixth amended complaint, filed on November 13, 2012, alleges that the decedent was exposed to, and inhaled and/or ingested, asbestos fibers and particles from various asbestos-containing products, which contributed to the decedent's mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies.   The plaintiff alleges that multiple defendants were responsible for the decedent's injuries.

The original plaintiffs, Donald Mazzaia and Joan Mazzaia, commenced this action on April 6, 2011.   Donald Mazzaia died on October 28, 2011, a resident of Sebastian, Florida.   Joan Mazzaia was appointed as personal representative of the estate of Donald Mazzaia by a Florida court of probate and, subsequently, a motion to substitute the fiduciary as plaintiff was filed, and granted, by this court.

After the initial motion to substitute the estate was filed, the defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue because she had failed to obtain ancillary letters of administration from Connecticut.   The court then raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and ordered the parties to brief the issue as it related to the plaintiff's capacity to bring an action in Connecticut.¹  On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed another motion to substitute the fiduciary as plaintiff, accompanied by ancillary administration documents issued by a court of probate located in the state of Connecticut.

The parties appeared for argument at the October 1, 2012 asbestos calendar.   At oral argument, the defendant raised a second issue related to subject matter jurisdiction.   The defendant, acknowledging that the plaintiff had filed the appropriate ancillary administration documents, now contested the court's jurisdiction to address the plaintiff's actual motion to substitute the fiduciary as a party plaintiff and/or the defendant's previously-filed motions for summary judgment.

This court has previously aligned itself with decisions of the Superior Court allowing a court to address a motion to substitute while an issue of subject matter jurisdiction is pending before a court.   See Dragonette v. Maryca Enterprises, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia–Milford at Derby, Docket No. CV 09 5009735 (September 15, 2010, Bellis, J.) (50 Conn. L. Rptr. 624), and cases cited therein.   The court finds no reason to deviate from that position with respect to the present case.   Accordingly, the court will reach the merits of the plaintiff's present motion to substitute Joan Mazzaia as a fiduciary.

The court recognizes that the facts presented in this action do not fall within the usual parameters of a case governed by General Statutes § 52–109, the statute governing the substitution of a plaintiff.   The standard set forth in that statute, however, is helpful to the court in deciding the plaintiff's motion to substitute the fiduciary.  Section 52–109 provides in pertinent part that a person may be substituted as a plaintiff when “it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute ․” This matter was commenced in the name of the proper plaintiffs, Donald and Joan Mazzaia, and, upon the death of Donald Mazzaia, Joan Mazzaia was substituted in her capacity as the personal representative of Donald Mazzaia's estate, albeit without letters of ancillary administration from a probate court in the state of Connecticut.   Now, the plaintiff has filed the proper documentation.   The court finds that the estate is a party necessary to enable the court to determine the real matter in dispute and the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice.   Accordingly, the court grants the plaintiff's motion to substitute the fiduciary as a plaintiff.

BELLIS, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. “The qualification of an administrator or executor in a foreign jurisdiction does not, as such, give him the right to administer upon assets here, or to sue to recover a debt due here.   He must first take out ancillary administration.”  Equitable Trust Co. v. Plume, 92 Conn. 649, 654, 103 A. 940 (1918).   A failure to obtain the appropriate ancillary administration documents impacts a party's capacity to bring suit in this jurisdiction.   This court is aware that, under certain circumstances, a lack of capacity to bring suit implicates a party's standing and, accordingly, the subject matter jurisdiction of a court.   See Litvak v. Artusio, 137 Conn.App. 397, 49 A.3d 762 (2012) (court dismissed case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because party lacked standing to sue in representative capacity where summons identified party in individual capacity and pleadings identifying her as executrix of estate not automatically bestow standing)..  FN1. “The qualification of an administrator or executor in a foreign jurisdiction does not, as such, give him the right to administer upon assets here, or to sue to recover a debt due here.   He must first take out ancillary administration.”  Equitable Trust Co. v. Plume, 92 Conn. 649, 654, 103 A. 940 (1918).   A failure to obtain the appropriate ancillary administration documents impacts a party's capacity to bring suit in this jurisdiction.   This court is aware that, under certain circumstances, a lack of capacity to bring suit implicates a party's standing and, accordingly, the subject matter jurisdiction of a court.   See Litvak v. Artusio, 137 Conn.App. 397, 49 A.3d 762 (2012) (court dismissed case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because party lacked standing to sue in representative capacity where summons identified party in individual capacity and pleadings identifying her as executrix of estate not automatically bestow standing).

Bellis, Barbara N., J.