Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.13-16

In this case, the plaintiff(s) claim(s) that the defendants are employees or agents of a corporation.

Where the defendants are employees or agents of a corporation, the law requires the plaintiff(s)

to prove additional facts to succeed on the conspiracy claim under the intracorporate conspiracy

doctrine.

As I previously instructed, for any alleged civil conspiracy, the plaintiff(s) must prove a violation

of an intentional tort, in this case <specify tort>, and must also prove a conspiracy. In order to

succeed on a claim of conspiracy against defendants who (all/both) work for the same

corporation, the plaintiff(s) must also prove that:

1. the defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment when they

engaged in tortious act or acts; and

2. the defendants engaged in conspiratorial conduct to further their own personal

purposes and not in furtherance of the corporation’s interest.

Someone who was acting in furtherance of a corporation’s interests is not acting to further their

own interests. In determining whether someone was acting outside the scope of their

employment, you must find that:

1. the conduct occurred outside of the employer’s authorized time and space limits;

2. the conduct is not of the type that that the employee is employed to perform; and

3. the defendants are not motivated in any way by a purpose to serve the employer.

If you find that the acts by the defendants that support a finding of the underlying tort were done

within the scope of their employment or to further the corporation’s interest, then you may not

find that the defendants were involved in a civil conspiracy. If you find that the defendants were

not acting within the scope of their employment and to further their own interest, you may find

that they engaged in a conspiracy.

If you find that the plaintiff(s) (has/have) failed to prove the tortious act(s) or (has/have) failed to

prove an intracorporate conspiracy in accordance with the instructions I have just given you, then

the plaintiff(s) (has/have) failed to prove the intracorporate civil conspiracy claim, and you must

enter a verdict for the defendants on this claim. If you find that the plaintiff(s) (has/have) proved

the claim of intracorporate conspiracy, then you must find in favor of the plaintiff(s) on this

claim.

[<Add the following when appropriate:> It is possible for you find that just two of the defendants

engaged in a civil conspiracy. If you find that the plaintiff(s) proved both the underlying tort and

a conspiracy between some, but not all, of the defendants, then you must enter a verdict on this

claim for the defendants not involved in the conspiracy.]