## Facts

- Karen Delahunty and Patrick J. Delahunty, Jr. divorced after Karen filed for dissolution in 1988.
- A $100,000 life insurance policy on Patrick’s life was owned by Karen, who was also the beneficiary.
- Patrick asked the insurer to surrender the policy in July 1987; surrender paperwork was submitted with Karen’s signature allegedly forged by Patrick or someone acting at his direction.
- The insurer cancelled the policy and issued a cash-surrender check ($7,379.54) payable to Karen, which was sent to Patrick’s office.
- Patrick allegedly forged Karen’s endorsement, diverted the proceeds to buy a separate policy for his own benefit, and concealed the events from Karen.
- Karen alleged she learned of the surrender in June 1989 after receiving written notice that the policy had been surrendered in September 1987.
- In the dissolution proceeding, Karen claimed entitlement to the surrendered policy proceeds and presented evidence about Patrick’s conduct; the court divided the marital estate by judgment dated January 4, 1990.
- In January 1992, Karen filed a separate civil action against Patrick, the agent, and the insurer, asserting tort and statutory claims, including fraud, intentional interference with contractual/economic relations, emotional distress damages, and enhanced damages under Connecticut theft and forgery statutes.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata barred a former spouse’s post-dissolution tort action seeking damages for intentional misconduct during the marriage when related facts were raised in the dissolution proceeding.
2. Whether a dissolution court’s consideration of disputed conduct for property division constitutes an adjudication on the merits of separate tort causes of action and their distinct remedies.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for Patrick and remanded.
- The court held that res judicata did not bar the post-dissolution tort action.
- The court concluded that the policies supporting claim preclusion were not persuasive in this domestic relations setting and would not be served by barring the later tort claims.
- The court emphasized that dissolution proceedings focus on status, support, and equitable distribution, not full adjudication of tort liability and tort-specific remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion generally prevents relitigation of claims that were, or could have been, raised and finally decided in prior litigation between the same parties.
- In marital dissolution proceedings, factual overlap between property-division disputes and later tort allegations does not necessarily mean the later tort causes of action were adjudicated, or were required to be adjudicated, in the dissolution case.
- Dissolution courts allocate property equitably and are not structured to provide the full range of tort remedies (e.g., punitive damages or statutory multipliers for theft/forgery); this remedial mismatch can weigh against applying res judicata to bar a later tort suit.
- Applying res judicata in a way that forces comprehensive tort litigation into dissolution proceedings may undermine efficient and fair resolution of family matters and may not advance the doctrine’s objectives.

## Conclusion

The court held that a divorce judgment that considered a spouse’s alleged misconduct for equitable distribution purposes did not preclude a later civil action seeking tort and statutory damages for that misconduct, and it reinstated the plaintiff’s post-dissolution claims for further proceedings.


Delahunty v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582, 674 A.2d 1290 (Conn. 1996)