Duni v. United Technologies Corporation/Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division
Connecticut Supreme Court
239 Conn. 19, 682 A.2d 99 (1996)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
William Duni was employed by United Technologies Corporation/Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division (Pratt & Whitney) (defendant) from 1941 until 1982. In 1984, William filed a workers’-compensation claim against Pratt & Whitney alleging that he was disabled due to his exposure to various substances during his employment. William eventually settled his claim with Pratt & Whitney for $72,000. In exchange for the settlement payment, William signed a stipulation agreeing to release Pratt & Whitney from any further liability to anybody based on William’s claimed injuries or any condition resulting from those injuries. William died in 1991. Beatrice Duni (plaintiff), William’s widow, sought workers’-compensation survivor benefits from Pratt & Whitney, asserting that William had died from the injuries he sustained during his employment. Pratt & Whitney argued that Beatrice’s claim should be dismissed because William’s stipulated release barred Beatrice from seeking benefits. A workers’-compensation commissioner rejected Pratt & Whitney’s argument, concluding that Beatrice had a right to survivor benefits that was independent of William’s right to recover workers’-compensation benefits and noting that Beatrice did not sign the stipulation. The workers’-compensation review board reversed the commissioner’s decision after concluding that the stipulation barred Beatrice’s claim. Beatrice appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Palmer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.