Ronald Gold v. John G. Rowland Et A — Schaller, J…

Summary

Justice Schaller, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have affirmed the trial court's refusal to dismiss the plaintiff's takings claim because the complaint and existing record supported an agency theory and the plaintiff was not required to prove that theory at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Schaller also would have recognized Anthem's standing to cross-appeal because dismissal of the claims against the state exposed Anthem to a substantial risk of duplicative liability and removed the state from the interpleader action. Justice Palmer, dissenting in part, likewise would have allowed the takings claim to proceed, emphasizing that the state's agency relationship and the plaintiff's property interest were factual matters for trial.