Connecticut courts do not recognize a cause of action for "easement by necessity" that permits a plaintiff to obtain use of electricity. The plaintiff, William Francini, owns property in East Haddam that relies on a generator and that lacks electricity from a commercial supplier. The plaintiff requested that the court grant the plaintiff an "easement by necessity," to use Goodspeed Airport's property so that the plaintiff has electricity. The plaintiff maintained that Goodspeed Airport permitted other neighbors to obtain electricity via the Goodspeed Airport property, provided that they pay a $7,500 fee, and that the plaintiff is willing to pay that amount. Allegedly, Goodspeed Airport added other conditions, concerning a right-of-way applicable only to the plaintiff, and the other terms were not acceptable to the plaintiff. An "easement by necessity" requires that the party that requests the easement be landlocked, pursuant to Sanders v. Dias, a 2008 decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court. Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for an "easement by necessity" to obtain electricity. "Almost every court in Connecticut which has considered an easement by necessity," wrote the court, "has done so where the moving party has absolutely no enjoyment of its property without traveling over the defendant's property." The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on this count. 

VIEW FULL CASE