Preview
DOCKET NO.: DBD-CV-24-6049037 S
SABRINA TOLPPI AND : SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT TOLPPI :
v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
: DANBURY AT DANBURY
:
MARCUS DELGADO, ET AL. : APRIL 17, 2024
REQUEST TO REVISE
Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35, the defendant PV Holding Corp. hereby requests the
plaintiffs revise their Complaint dated January 15, 2024 as follows.
FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Four,
Paragraph 16, that “the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to
operate the motor vehicle rented to him.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Four, Paragraph 16, which reads as follows:
16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant
PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver
MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle
rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or
in any state.
REASONS FOR FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
In this action, the plaintiffs are alleging injuries as a result of the alleged negligence of
the defendant Marcus Delgado in causing a motor vehicle accident with the vehicle occupied by
1
the plaintiffs while operating a vehicle owned by PV Holding Corp. The plaintiffs state, at
Count Four, a claim that PV Holding was negligent in its practices and procedures when renting
the subject vehicle to Delgado. At Paragraph 16 of Count Four, the plaintiffs allege two reasons
why they claim PV Holding Corp. was negligent in renting the vehicle to Delgado: (1) Delgado
was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him and (2) Delgado did not
have a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any other state. The claim that
“Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle” is unfairly vague and overly
broad and does not fairly apprise PV Holding Corp. of the basis of the allegation beyond the
allegation that Delgado did not have a valid driver’s license.
Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiffs withdraw the allegation
“Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him” or, in the
alternative, clarify that the basis for that allegation is that Delgado did not possess a valid
driver’s license at the time PV Holding Corp. is alleged to have rented the vehicle to Delgado. If
the plaintiffs base their allegation that Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor
vehicle on other grounds, the plaintiffs ought to plead those grounds so that the defendant is
properly apprised of the plaintiffs’ allegations and the grounds for those allegations. Without the
requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to the
Complaint and preparing a defense.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
2
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2.
SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents,
servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus
Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 17 of Count Four, which reads as follows:
17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the
defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its
3
agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to
determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether
the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
Under Connecticut law, rental car companies are not obligated to conduct background
checks on potential rental car customers, including driving and criminal histories. Under
Connecticut law, rental car companies are required only to check that the rental customer possesses
a valid driver’s license. General Statutes §14-153. Stanford v. Nogiec, Superior Court, Judicial
District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-20-61274878-S, 2023 WL 7381590, Oct.
31, 2023 (Sicilian, J.); Davis v. Elrac, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New
Haven, Docket No.: CV-13-6037866-S, 2014 WL 539424, Sep. 26, 2014 (Wilson, J.); Hall v.
CAMRAC, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. HHD-04-
CV-12-6027530-S, 57 Conn. L. Rptr. 258, 2013 WL 6925959, Dec. 10, 2013 (Sheridan, J.);
DeRosa v. Evans, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No.
NNH-CV-10-6015111-S, 52 Conn. L. Rptr. 803, 2011 WL 5531045, Oct. 27, 2011 (Gold, J.);
Hollis v. Alamo Financing, L.P., Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket
No. HHD-CV-08-5024043-S, 51 Conn. L. Rptr. 434, 2011 WL 782924, Feb. 4, 2011 (Robaina,
J.); and Chapman v. Herren, Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London,
Docket No.: CV-07-5005067-S, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. 228, 2010 WL 2927377, Jun. 24, 2010
(Cosgrove, J.). “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the
requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny
person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected
4
the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and]
shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence
. . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s
driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s
license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232.
Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiffs withdraw the allegation “PV
Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to
determine whether [Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” At this paragraph, the
plaintiffs have pleaded the requirement under General Statutes §14-153 that PV Holding Corp.
was to check that Delgado possessed a valid driver’s license. The additional allegation that PV
Holding Corp. failed to conduct a background check to determine whether Delgado was proper
and suitable to rent a vehicle is improper as it claims a duty that is beyond a rental company’s duty
under Connecticut law. The allegation is also vague, ambiguous and overly broad. As such, that
allegation ought to be withdrawn from Paragraph 17.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2.
5
THIRD REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (b) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the
defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b), of Count Four, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(b) in that it failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether
prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO,
were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-
driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license;
6
REASONS FOR THIRD REQUESTED REVISION
The pleading at Paragraph 18 (b) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is
beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law.
Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding
Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to
the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and
suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b) of Count Four, the plaintiff does
not limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether
Delgado possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (b) is
currently pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus
Delgado was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not
possess a valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead
that other reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested
Revision, above.
Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental
company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur
legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car
companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation
which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s
license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on
such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental
7
car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car
company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.”
Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates
its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above.
FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (c) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-
driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c), of Count Four, the allegation that PV Holding Corp which
reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
8
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(c) in that it failed to properly train its employees to determine whether
prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO
were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant
driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION
The pleading at Paragraph 18 (c) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is
beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law.
Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding
Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to
the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and
suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c) of Count Four, the plaintiff does not
limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether Delgado
possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (c) is currently
pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus Delgado
was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not possess a
valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead that other
reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested Revision,
above.
Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental
company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur
legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car
companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation
9
which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s
license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on
such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental
car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car
company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.”
Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. . Accordingly, PV Holding Corp.
incorporates its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above.
10
FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (d), of Count Four, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more
particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (d), of Count Four, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(d) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed
and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado.
REASONS FOR FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION
First, similar to the pleading issues raised above, the phrase “unsafe drivers” is unfairly
vague, overly broad and ambiguous. The defendant is not fairly and properly apprised of the
manner in which the plaintiff claims Marcus Delgado was an “unsafe driver” at the time he rented
the subject vehicle, nor is the defendant fairly and properly apprised of the facts or attributes for
which the plaintiff claims PV Holding Corp. failed to screen. In this subparagraph, the plaintiff
states a claim that the defendant failed to properly screen for unlicensed drivers, including
Delgado. The additional phrase of “unsafe drivers” is unfairly overly broad, vague and ambiguous.
Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiff withdraw from the subparagraph
the phrase “and unsafe drivers” or, in the alternative, clarify what the plaintiff means by unsafe
drivers, including the manner in which the plaintiff claims Delgado was an unsafe driver beyond
being allegedly without a valid and active driver’s license, and clarifying the facts or attributes for
which PV Holding Corp. allegedly failed to screen at the time of the vehicle rental. If the plaintiff
11
bases the allegation that Delgado was an unsafe driver or that PV Holding Corp. failed to screen
for attributes other than a valid driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to plead those facts so the
defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations.
Without the requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to
the complaint and preparing a defense.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2.
Furthermore, the manner in which this subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental
company’s duty under Connecticut Law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur
legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car
companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation
which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle
operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the
signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this
statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record;
rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before
renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV
12
Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the second requested revision, above.
SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (e) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective
lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a
vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e), of Count Four, which reads as follows:
13
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(e) in that it failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of
determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver
Marcus Delgado, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including
whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION
The pleading at Paragraph 18 (e) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is
beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law.
Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding
Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to
the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and
suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e) of Count Four, the plaintiff does not
limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether Delgado
possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (e) is currently
pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus Delgado
was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not possess a
valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead that other
reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested Revision,
above.
Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental
company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur
14
legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car
companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation
which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s
license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on
such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental
car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car
company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.”
Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates
its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above.
15
SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (f), of Count Four, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more
particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (f), of Count Four, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(f) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed
and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado.
REASONS FOR SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION
First, similar to the pleading issues raised above, the phrase “unsafe drivers” is unfairly
vague, overly broad and ambiguous. The defendant is not fairly and properly apprised of the
manner in which the plaintiff claims Marcus Delgado was an “unsafe driver” at the time he rented
the subject vehicle, nor is the defendant fairly and properly apprised of the facts or attributes for
which the plaintiff claims PV Holding Corp. failed to screen. In this subparagraph, the plaintiff
states a claim that the defendant failed to properly screen for unlicensed drivers, including
Delgado. The additional phrase of “unsafe drivers” is unfairly overly broad, vague and ambiguous.
Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiff withdraw from the subparagraph
the phrase “and unsafe drivers” or, in the alternative, clarify what the plaintiff means by unsafe
drivers, including the manner in which the plaintiff claims Delgado was an unsafe driver beyond
being allegedly without a valid and active driver’s license, and clarifying the facts or attributes for
16
which PV Holding Corp. allegedly failed to screen at the time of the vehicle rental. If the plaintiff
bases the allegation that Delgado was an unsafe driver or that PV Holding Corp. failed to screen
for attributes other than a valid driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to plead those facts so the
defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations.
Without the requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to
the complaint and preparing a defense.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2.
Furthermore, the manner in which this subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental
company’s duty under Connecticut Law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur
legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car
companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation
which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle
operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the
signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this
statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record;
rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before
17
renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV
Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the second requested revision, above.
EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Five,
Paragraph 16 that “the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not proper and suitable to
operate the vehicle rented to him.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 16 of Count Five, which reads as follows:
16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant
PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver
MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle
18
rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or
in any state.
REASONS FOR EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION
As this subparagraph is incorporated from Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, the
defendant incorporates its argument as stated under Reasons for First Requested Revision.
NINTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Five the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents,
servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus
Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 17 of Count Five, which reads as follows:
17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the
defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its
agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to
determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether
the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
19
REASONS FOR NINTH REQUESTED REVISION
As this paragraph is incorporated from Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, the
defendant incorporates its argument as stated under Reasons for Second Requested Revision.
TENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To plead a more complete or particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant-
driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor
vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Five, Paragraph 18(a), which reads as follows:
20
18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff,
Sabrina Tolppi, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV
Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(a) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS
DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor
vehicle, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the unreasonable
risk of injury created to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI.
REASONS FOR TENTH REQUESTED REVISION
At Paragraph 18 of Count Five, the plaintiff states the claim that Marcus Delgado did not
possess an active and valid driver’s license as the basis for the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment
claim as stated at Count Five. The phrase “was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee
motor vehicle” is, however, unfairly vague and overly broad. The defendant requests that the
plaintiff clarify that the basis for the allegation that Delgado was not competent to operate the
referenced vehicle is that Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license. If the
plaintiff is basing the allegation that Delgado was not competent on some other factual bases, the
plaintiff ought to plead those bases so that the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s
allegations and the grounds for those allegations.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2
21
ELEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To plead a more complete and particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant-
driver MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Five, Paragraph 18(b), which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff,
Sabrina Tolppi, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV
Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(b) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS
DELGADO, was an unsafe driver, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him
despite the risk of injury to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI.
22
REASONS FOR ELEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION
At Paragraph 18 of Count Five, the plaintiff states the claim that Marcus Delgado did not
possess an active and valid driver’s license as the basis for the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment
claim. The phrase was “an unsafe driver” is, however, unfairly vague and overly broad. The
defendant requests that the plaintiff clarify that the basis for the allegation that Delgado was “an
unsafe driver” is that Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license. If the plaintiff
is basing the allegation that Delgado “was an unsafe driver” on some other factual bases, the
plaintiff ought to plead those bases so that the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s
allegations and the grounds for those allegations.
The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the
specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate
Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the
defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained
in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id.,
303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice
Book §§10-1 and 10-2
23
TWELFTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Ten,
Paragraph 16, that “the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to
operate the motor vehicle rented to him.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Ten, Paragraph 16, which reads as follows:
16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant
PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver
MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle
rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or
in any state.
REASONS FOR TWELFTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 16.
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the first
requested revision here as the reasons for the twelfth requested revision.
24
THIRTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents,
servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus
Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 17 of Count Ten, which reads as follows:
17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the
defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its
agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to
determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether
the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR THIRTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 17.
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the second
requested revision here as the reasons for the thirteenth requested revision.
25
FOURTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (b) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the
defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b), of Count Ten, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff, ROBERT
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(b) in that it failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether
prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO,
were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-
driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license;
26
REASONS FOR FOURTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18
(b). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the third
requested revision here as the reasons for the fourteenth requested revision.
27
FIFTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (c) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-
driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c), of Count Ten, the allegation that PV Holding Corp which
reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(c) in that it failed to properly train its employees to determine whether
prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO
were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant
driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR FIFTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18
(c). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the fourth
requested revision here as the reasons for the fifteenth requested revision.
28
SIXTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (d), of Count Ten, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more
particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (d), of Count Ten, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(d) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed
and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado.
REASONS FOR SIXTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18
(d). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the fifth
requested revision here as the reasons for the sixteenth requested revision.
29
SEVENTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (e) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed
to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective
lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a
vehicle.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e), of Count Ten, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(e) in that it failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of
determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver
Marcus Delgado, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including
whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR SEVENTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18
(e). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the sixth
requested revision here as the reasons for the seventeenth requested revision.
30
EIGHTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 18 (f), of Count Ten, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more
particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 18, subparagraph (f), of Count Ten, which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT
TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV
HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(f) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed
and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado.
REASONS FOR EIGHTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18
(f). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the seventh
requested revision here as the reasons for the eighteenth requested revision.
31
NINETEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Eleven,
Paragraph 16 that “the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not proper and suitable to
operate the vehicle rented to him.”
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 16 of Count Eleven, which reads as follows:
16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant
PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver
MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle
rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or
in any state.
REASONS FOR NINETEENTH REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 16.
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the Eighth
requested revision here as the reasons for the nineteenth requested revision.
32
TWENTIETH REQUESTED REVISION
To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Eleven the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its
agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether
[Marcus Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Paragraph 17 of Count Eleven, which reads as follows:
17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the
defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its
agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to
determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether
the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license.
REASONS FOR REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 17.
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the ninth
requested revision here as the reasons for the twentieth requested revision.
33
TWENTY-FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
To plead a more complete or particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant-
driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor
vehicle.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Eleven, Paragraph 18(a), which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff,
ROBERT TOLPPI, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV
Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(a) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS
DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor
vehicle, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the unreasonable
risk of injury created to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI.
REASONS FOR TWENTY-FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 18(a).
34
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the tenth
requested revision here as the reasons for the twenty-first requested revision.
TWENTY-SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
To plead a more complete and particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant-
driver MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver.
PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED
Count Eleven, Paragraph 18(b), which reads as follows:
18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff,
ROBERT TOLPPI, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV
35
Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the
following respects:
(b) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS
DELGADO, was an unsafe driver, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him
despite the risk of injury to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA
TOLPPI.
REASONS FOR TWENTY-SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 18(b).
Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the eleventh
requested revision here as the reasons for the twenty-second requested revision.
THE DEFENDANT
PV HOLDING CORP.
BY MILANO & WANAT LLC
By /S/ 407218
Adam F. Acquarulo
Milano & Wanat LLC
471 East Main Street
Branford, Connecticut 06405
(203) 315-7211 - phone
(203) 315-7007 – fax
aacquarulo@mwllc.us
36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the
Preview
DOCKET NO.: DBD-CV-24-6049037 S SABRINA TOLPPI AND : SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT TOLPPI : v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : DANBURY AT DANBURY : MARCUS DELGADO, ET AL. : APRIL 17, 2024 REQUEST TO REVISE Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35, the defendant PV Holding Corp. hereby requests the plaintiffs revise their Complaint dated January 15, 2024 as follows. FIRST REQUESTED REVISION To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Four, Paragraph 16, that “the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Four, Paragraph 16, which reads as follows: 16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any state. REASONS FOR FIRST REQUESTED REVISION In this action, the plaintiffs are alleging injuries as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant Marcus Delgado in causing a motor vehicle accident with the vehicle occupied by 1 the plaintiffs while operating a vehicle owned by PV Holding Corp. The plaintiffs state, at Count Four, a claim that PV Holding was negligent in its practices and procedures when renting the subject vehicle to Delgado. At Paragraph 16 of Count Four, the plaintiffs allege two reasons why they claim PV Holding Corp. was negligent in renting the vehicle to Delgado: (1) Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him and (2) Delgado did not have a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any other state. The claim that “Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle” is unfairly vague and overly broad and does not fairly apprise PV Holding Corp. of the basis of the allegation beyond the allegation that Delgado did not have a valid driver’s license. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiffs withdraw the allegation “Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him” or, in the alternative, clarify that the basis for that allegation is that Delgado did not possess a valid driver’s license at the time PV Holding Corp. is alleged to have rented the vehicle to Delgado. If the plaintiffs base their allegation that Delgado was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle on other grounds, the plaintiffs ought to plead those grounds so that the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiffs’ allegations and the grounds for those allegations. Without the requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to the Complaint and preparing a defense. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained 2 in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2. SECOND REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 17 of Count Four, which reads as follows: 17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its 3 agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR SECOND REQUESTED REVISION Under Connecticut law, rental car companies are not obligated to conduct background checks on potential rental car customers, including driving and criminal histories. Under Connecticut law, rental car companies are required only to check that the rental customer possesses a valid driver’s license. General Statutes §14-153. Stanford v. Nogiec, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-20-61274878-S, 2023 WL 7381590, Oct. 31, 2023 (Sicilian, J.); Davis v. Elrac, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No.: CV-13-6037866-S, 2014 WL 539424, Sep. 26, 2014 (Wilson, J.); Hall v. CAMRAC, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. HHD-04- CV-12-6027530-S, 57 Conn. L. Rptr. 258, 2013 WL 6925959, Dec. 10, 2013 (Sheridan, J.); DeRosa v. Evans, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. NNH-CV-10-6015111-S, 52 Conn. L. Rptr. 803, 2011 WL 5531045, Oct. 27, 2011 (Gold, J.); Hollis v. Alamo Financing, L.P., Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-08-5024043-S, 51 Conn. L. Rptr. 434, 2011 WL 782924, Feb. 4, 2011 (Robaina, J.); and Chapman v. Herren, Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London, Docket No.: CV-07-5005067-S, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. 228, 2010 WL 2927377, Jun. 24, 2010 (Cosgrove, J.). “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected 4 the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiffs withdraw the allegation “PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” At this paragraph, the plaintiffs have pleaded the requirement under General Statutes §14-153 that PV Holding Corp. was to check that Delgado possessed a valid driver’s license. The additional allegation that PV Holding Corp. failed to conduct a background check to determine whether Delgado was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle is improper as it claims a duty that is beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut law. The allegation is also vague, ambiguous and overly broad. As such, that allegation ought to be withdrawn from Paragraph 17. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2. 5 THIRD REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (b) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b), of Count Four, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (b) in that it failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant- driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license; 6 REASONS FOR THIRD REQUESTED REVISION The pleading at Paragraph 18 (b) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law. Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b) of Count Four, the plaintiff does not limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether Delgado possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (b) is currently pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus Delgado was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not possess a valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead that other reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested Revision, above. Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental 7 car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above. FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (c) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant- driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c), of Count Four, the allegation that PV Holding Corp which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV 8 HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (c) in that it failed to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION The pleading at Paragraph 18 (c) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law. Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c) of Count Four, the plaintiff does not limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether Delgado possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (c) is currently pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus Delgado was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not possess a valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead that other reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested Revision, above. Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation 9 which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. . Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above. 10 FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (d), of Count Four, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (d), of Count Four, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (d) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado. REASONS FOR FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION First, similar to the pleading issues raised above, the phrase “unsafe drivers” is unfairly vague, overly broad and ambiguous. The defendant is not fairly and properly apprised of the manner in which the plaintiff claims Marcus Delgado was an “unsafe driver” at the time he rented the subject vehicle, nor is the defendant fairly and properly apprised of the facts or attributes for which the plaintiff claims PV Holding Corp. failed to screen. In this subparagraph, the plaintiff states a claim that the defendant failed to properly screen for unlicensed drivers, including Delgado. The additional phrase of “unsafe drivers” is unfairly overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiff withdraw from the subparagraph the phrase “and unsafe drivers” or, in the alternative, clarify what the plaintiff means by unsafe drivers, including the manner in which the plaintiff claims Delgado was an unsafe driver beyond being allegedly without a valid and active driver’s license, and clarifying the facts or attributes for which PV Holding Corp. allegedly failed to screen at the time of the vehicle rental. If the plaintiff 11 bases the allegation that Delgado was an unsafe driver or that PV Holding Corp. failed to screen for attributes other than a valid driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to plead those facts so the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations. Without the requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to the complaint and preparing a defense. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2. Furthermore, the manner in which this subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut Law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV 12 Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the second requested revision, above. SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (e) of Count Four the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e), of Count Four, which reads as follows: 13 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (e) in that it failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver Marcus Delgado, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION The pleading at Paragraph 18 (e) is unfairly overly broad, vague and states a claim that is beyond the duty of the defendant under Connecticut law. Similar to the pleading issue raised at the First Requested Revision, above, PV Holding Corp. requests the plaintiff delete the improper, vague and overly broad allegation pertaining to the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure that Marcus Delgado was “proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” At Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e) of Count Four, the plaintiff does not limit her claim to a claim that the defendant, or its employees, failed to determine whether Delgado possessed a valid and active driver’s license. The manner in which Paragraph 18 (e) is currently pleaded is unfairly overly broad, vague and improper. If the plaintiff’s claim that Marcus Delgado was not proper and suitable to rent a vehicle for some reason other than that he did not possess a valid and active driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to be required to specifically plead that other reason or reasons. The defendant incorporates its arguments at the First Requested Revision, above. Furthermore, the manner in which the subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur 14 legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the Second Requested Revision, above. 15 SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (f), of Count Four, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (f), of Count Four, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (f) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado. REASONS FOR SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION First, similar to the pleading issues raised above, the phrase “unsafe drivers” is unfairly vague, overly broad and ambiguous. The defendant is not fairly and properly apprised of the manner in which the plaintiff claims Marcus Delgado was an “unsafe driver” at the time he rented the subject vehicle, nor is the defendant fairly and properly apprised of the facts or attributes for which the plaintiff claims PV Holding Corp. failed to screen. In this subparagraph, the plaintiff states a claim that the defendant failed to properly screen for unlicensed drivers, including Delgado. The additional phrase of “unsafe drivers” is unfairly overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. requests that the plaintiff withdraw from the subparagraph the phrase “and unsafe drivers” or, in the alternative, clarify what the plaintiff means by unsafe drivers, including the manner in which the plaintiff claims Delgado was an unsafe driver beyond being allegedly without a valid and active driver’s license, and clarifying the facts or attributes for 16 which PV Holding Corp. allegedly failed to screen at the time of the vehicle rental. If the plaintiff bases the allegation that Delgado was an unsafe driver or that PV Holding Corp. failed to screen for attributes other than a valid driver’s license, the plaintiff ought to plead those facts so the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations. Without the requested revision, the defendant is prevented from fairly and properly responding to the complaint and preparing a defense. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2. Furthermore, the manner in which this subparagraph is pleaded goes beyond a rental company’s duty under Connecticut Law as set forth in General Statutes §14-153. “[O]ur legislature has already enacted a statutory scheme governing the requirements of rental car companies. [Section] 14-153 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[a]ny person, firm or corporation which rents a motor vehicle . . . shall inspect or cause to be inspected the motor vehicle operator’s license of the person initially operating such motor vehicle, [and] shall compare the signature on such license with that of the alleged licensee written in his presence . . .’ Under this statute, a rental car company is not required to investigate a potential renter’s driving record; rather, the rental car company must only assess the facial validity of a driver’s license before 17 renting to that driver.” Chapman v. Herren, supra, 50 Conn. L. Rptr. at 232. Accordingly, PV Holding Corp. incorporates its arguments stated at the second requested revision, above. EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Five, Paragraph 16 that “the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not proper and suitable to operate the vehicle rented to him.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 16 of Count Five, which reads as follows: 16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle 18 rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any state. REASONS FOR EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION As this subparagraph is incorporated from Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, the defendant incorporates its argument as stated under Reasons for First Requested Revision. NINTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Five the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 17 of Count Five, which reads as follows: 17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. 19 REASONS FOR NINTH REQUESTED REVISION As this paragraph is incorporated from Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, the defendant incorporates its argument as stated under Reasons for Second Requested Revision. TENTH REQUESTED REVISION To plead a more complete or particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant- driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Five, Paragraph 18(a), which reads as follows: 20 18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Sabrina Tolppi, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (a) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the unreasonable risk of injury created to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI. REASONS FOR TENTH REQUESTED REVISION At Paragraph 18 of Count Five, the plaintiff states the claim that Marcus Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license as the basis for the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim as stated at Count Five. The phrase “was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle” is, however, unfairly vague and overly broad. The defendant requests that the plaintiff clarify that the basis for the allegation that Delgado was not competent to operate the referenced vehicle is that Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license. If the plaintiff is basing the allegation that Delgado was not competent on some other factual bases, the plaintiff ought to plead those bases so that the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2 21 ELEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION To plead a more complete and particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant- driver MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Five, Paragraph 18(b), which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Sabrina Tolppi, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (b) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the risk of injury to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI. 22 REASONS FOR ELEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION At Paragraph 18 of Count Five, the plaintiff states the claim that Marcus Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license as the basis for the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim. The phrase was “an unsafe driver” is, however, unfairly vague and overly broad. The defendant requests that the plaintiff clarify that the basis for the allegation that Delgado was “an unsafe driver” is that Delgado did not possess an active and valid driver’s license. If the plaintiff is basing the allegation that Delgado “was an unsafe driver” on some other factual bases, the plaintiff ought to plead those bases so that the defendant is properly apprised of the plaintiff’s allegations and the grounds for those allegations. The danger of allowing vague and broad allegations of negligence without reference to the specific facts upon which the plaintiff relies has been addressed by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Fuller v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 38 Conn. App. 299 (1995). If the defendant does not require the plaintiff to be fact specific with regard to the allegations contained in the Complaint, it may waive its right to limit the scope of the plaintiff’s claim later at trial. Id., 303. See also Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 411 Footnote 11 (1999); and Practice Book §§10-1 and 10-2 23 TWELFTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Ten, Paragraph 16, that “the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Ten, Paragraph 16, which reads as follows: 16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any state. REASONS FOR TWELFTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 16. Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the first requested revision here as the reasons for the twelfth requested revision. 24 THIRTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 17 of Count Ten, which reads as follows: 17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR THIRTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 17. Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the second requested revision here as the reasons for the thirteenth requested revision. 25 FOURTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (b) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (b), of Count Ten, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff, ROBERT TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (b) in that it failed to properly supervise its employees in determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant- driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license; 26 REASONS FOR FOURTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18 (b). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the third requested revision here as the reasons for the fourteenth requested revision. 27 FIFTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (c) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant- driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (c), of Count Ten, the allegation that PV Holding Corp which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (c) in that it failed to properly train its employees to determine whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR FIFTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18 (c). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the fourth requested revision here as the reasons for the fifteenth requested revision. 28 SIXTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (d), of Count Ten, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (d), of Count Ten, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (d) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado. REASONS FOR SIXTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18 (d). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the fifth requested revision here as the reasons for the sixteenth requested revision. 29 SEVENTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (e) of Count Ten the allegation that PV Holding Corp. “failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (e), of Count Ten, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (e) in that it failed to properly hire competent employees who were capable of determining whether prospective lessors, including the defendant-driver Marcus Delgado, were proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR SEVENTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18 (e). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the sixth requested revision here as the reasons for the seventeenth requested revision. 30 EIGHTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 18 (f), of Count Ten, “and unsafe drivers,” or, state more particular facts in support of that term as pertains to this case. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 18, subparagraph (f), of Count Ten, which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and injuries sustained by the plaintiff ROBERT TOLPPI, as hereinbefore alleged were caused by the negligence of defendant PV HOLDING CORP., and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (f) in that it failed to implement procedures to properly screen for unlicensed and unsafe drivers, including the defendant-driver, Marcus Delgado. REASONS FOR EIGHTEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Four, Paragraph 18 (f). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the seventh requested revision here as the reasons for the eighteenth requested revision. 31 NINETEENTH REQUESTED REVISION To delete, or state more particular facts in support of the claim as stated at Count Eleven, Paragraph 16 that “the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not proper and suitable to operate the vehicle rented to him.” PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 16 of Count Eleven, which reads as follows: 16. At the time he rented the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle from the defendant PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees, the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO was not proper and suitable to operate the motor vehicle rented to him and did not a valid driver’s license with the State of Connecticut or in any state. REASONS FOR NINETEENTH REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 16. Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the Eighth requested revision here as the reasons for the nineteenth requested revision. 32 TWENTIETH REQUESTED REVISION To delete from Paragraph 17 of Count Eleven the allegation that PV Holding Corp., its agents, servants, and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether [Marcus Delgado] was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Paragraph 17 of Count Eleven, which reads as follows: 17. Prior to renting, leasing, or loaning the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle to the defendant-driver MARCUS DELGADO, defendant PV HOLDING CORP., its agents, servants and employees failed to conduct a background check to determine whether he was proper and suitable to rent a vehicle including whether the defendant-driver possessed a valid and active driver’s license. REASONS FOR REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 17. Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the ninth requested revision here as the reasons for the twentieth requested revision. 33 TWENTY-FIRST REQUESTED REVISION To plead a more complete or particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant- driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Eleven, Paragraph 18(a), which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff, ROBERT TOLPPI, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (a) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was not competent to operate the Jeep Grand Cherokee motor vehicle, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the unreasonable risk of injury created to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI. REASONS FOR TWENTY-FIRST REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 18(a). 34 Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the tenth requested revision here as the reasons for the twenty-first requested revision. TWENTY-SECOND REQUESTED REVISION To plead a more complete and particular statement as to the allegation that the defendant- driver MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver. PORTION OF PLEADING REQUESTED TO BE REVISED Count Eleven, Paragraph 18(b), which reads as follows: 18. The motor vehicle collision and resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff, ROBERT TOLPPI, were caused by the negligent entrustment of defendant PV 35 Holding Corp. and its agents, servants, and employees in some or all of the following respects: (b) In that it knew or should have known that the defendant-driver, MARCUS DELGADO, was an unsafe driver, and yet entrusted said motor vehicle to him despite the risk of injury to the public, including the plaintiff SABRINA TOLPPI. REASONS FOR TWENTY-SECOND REQUESTED REVISION This pleading is identical to the pleading by Sabrina Tolppi at Count Five, Paragraph 18(b). Accordingly, the defendant incorporates the reasons for requested revision stated at the eleventh requested revision here as the reasons for the twenty-second requested revision. THE DEFENDANT PV HOLDING CORP. BY MILANO & WANAT LLC By /S/ 407218 Adam F. Acquarulo Milano & Wanat LLC 471 East Main Street Branford, Connecticut 06405 (203) 315-7211 - phone (203) 315-7007 – fax aacquarulo@mwllc.us 36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the