Ronald Gold v. John G. Rowland — Palmer, J…

Summary

Justice Palmer, dissenting in part, would have upheld the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the plaintiff’s state constitutional takings claim on sovereign-immunity grounds. He reasoned that the complaint and existing record supported a fact question about whether the state held the demutualization proceeds as agent for the insured group, and that pleading sufficiency could not properly be resolved through a motion to dismiss. Justice Schaller, concurring in part and dissenting in part, likewise would have preserved the takings claims and additionally would have recognized the insurance defendants’ standing to cross-appeal.