New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Connecticut State Court Recognizes Tort of Intentional Spoliation of Evidence by Non-Party

Download PDF

The Connecticut Superior Court recognized a cause of action for third-party intentional spoliation of evidence in Diana v. NetJets Servs., Inc.,2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3491 (Conn. Super. Dec. 27, 2007), a personal injury action brought by an individual injured on airport property against, inter alia, the airport owner, which had received an incident report about the accident but allegedly disposed of it without transmitting it to the FAA. As a result, the incident report was lost and no FAA investigation was ever undertaken.

The Diana Court noted that the Connecticut Supreme Court had already recognized the independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence by a party in Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225, 905 A.2d 1165 (2006). The Diana Court held that “[t]he essential elements of the tort, as set forth in Rizzuto ... minimize the problem of placing an excessive burden on potential spoliation defendants — the third-party spoliator must not only be aware of the pending or potential action but must intentionally, in bad faith, destroy the evidence.” It surveyed the state of the law in the area as follows:

About thirty jurisdictions have addressed the question of whether to recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. Eight jurisdictions have clearly chosen to do so. See Smith v. Atkinson, 771 So.2d 429 (Ala. 2000) (third-party negligent spoliation); Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986) (intentional spoliation); Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225, 905 A.2d 1165 (2006) (first-party intentional spoliation); Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846 (D.C. 1998) (negligent or reckless spoliation); Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336, 993 P.2d 11 (1999) (third-party intentional and negligent spoliation); Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 120 N.M. 645, 905 P.2d 185 (1992) (intentional spoliation); Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Ohio St. 3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993) (intentional spoliation); Hannah v. Heeter, 213 W. Va. 704, 584 E.E.2d 560 (2003) (first-and third-party intentional spoliation and third-party negligent spoliation).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice