The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Contract Law

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5906

AC46392 - Finnochio Brothers, Inc. v. 587 CTA, LLC (“The plaintiff, Finocchio Brothers, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the defendant, 587 CTA, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that the defendant had cancelled the parties’ contract in accordance with the terms set forth therein. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5897

AC46122 - C. W. v. E. W. (“The plaintiff, C. W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following a court trial in an action seeking enforcement of an alleged oral agreement pursuant to which the self-represented defendants, E. W. and A. W., would sell the plaintiff real property in Waterbury after he performed repairs to it. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim after failing to consider judicial admissions allegedly made by the defendants as to the existence of the contract, and (2) found, in the portion of its memorandum of decision addressing the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff’s evidence of his labor at the property to be unreliable. We agree with the plaintiff’s second claim and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part.”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5893

AC44921 - GHP Media, Inc. v. Hughes ("The defendant and third-party plaintiff, Shafiis', Inc., doing business as TigerPress (TigerPress), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the third-party defendants, John Robinson and Joseph LaValla, both officers of the plaintiff, GHP Media, Inc. (GHP), after it granted their motion to strike TigerPress' revised third-party complaint for indemnification. On appeal, TigerPress claims that the court, in granting the third-party defendants' motion to strike, improperly concluded that its revised third-party complaint failed to allege that TigerPress, Robinson, and LaValla owed an identical duty to GHP in the underlying action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5884

AC46009 - Martin v. Todd Arthurs Co. (“The defendant, Todd Arthurs Company, Inc., doing business as Alpine Home Air Products, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between it and the self-represented plaintiff, Timothy Martin, and denying its motion to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court incorrectly determined that the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement, and (2) the court abused its discretion in declining to enforce a forum selection clause when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5875

AC45509, AC45510, AC45511 - Deer v. National General Ins. Co. (“These three appeals involve two consolidated actions arising from the nonrenewal of a homeowners insurance policy. The plaintiffs, Lee Deer and Keleen Deer, appeal from the judgments of the trial court granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant insurance companies, National General Insurance Company (National General) and Century-National Insurance Company (Century-National) (collectively, insurance companies), and the defendant insurance agents, Kevin Trahan and The Trahan Agency, Inc. (collectively, Trahan defendants). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motions because, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the defendants failed as a matter of law to provide them with adequate notice of the nonrenewal of their policy. We affirm the judgments of the trial court”)

AC45854 - United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. (“The plaintiff, United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Bank of America, N.A., as to the plaintiff’s two count amended complaint asserting claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the court improperly (1) considered evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion that failed to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of Practice Book § 17-46 and the common law, and (2) concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff’s claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5828

SC20754 - Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC ("In this certified appeal, the defendants, Aniello Dizenzo and his company, 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC (company), appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mercedes-Benz Financial. On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying their motion to open as untimely and with no basis, even though the defendants timely filed their motion. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.")

AC45867 - Burr v. Grossman Chevrolet-Nissan, Inc. (“The plaintiffs, Mathew Burr, Elmer Blackwell, and MPK Property Maintenance, LLC (MPK), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, Grossman Chevrolet-Nissan, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in (1) misinterpreting their legal claims, (2) relying on the testimony of the defendant’s representative to reach its conclusion, and (3) finding certain facts in support of its judgment for the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45620 - Jefferson Solar, LLC v. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Jefferson Solar, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action as to the defendants FuelCell Energy, Inc., and SCEF1 Fuel Cell, LLC (collectively, FuelCell), and the United Illuminating Company (United Illuminating). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert its claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

AC45222 - Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America (“The plaintiffs, Christoper S. Travinski and Lena L. Travinski, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, General Insurance Company of America, Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., on the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the counts of their complaint alleging breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA), General Statutes § 38a-271 et seq., and (2) permitted the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., to file a motion for summary judgment without posting a bond pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-27. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.)


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5814

SC20759 - Canner v. Governors Ridge Assn., Inc. (“The plaintiffs, Glen A. Canner, the executor of the estate of Charles A. Canner, and Louis D. Puteri, brought separate actions against a condominium association, the named defendant in each case, Governors Ridge Association, Inc., alleging that the foundations supporting their respective units were sinking as a result of improper design. In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court’s judgments in favor of the defendant on the ground that the three year tort statute of limitations; see General Statutes § 52-577; barred pursuit of an alleged cause of action under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. We conclude that some, but not all, of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are time barred and, accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5813

AC45057 - Glory Chapel International Cathedral v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Glory Chapel International Cathedral (Glory Chapel), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia Indemnity), striking all counts of Glory Chapel's complaint against Philadelphia Indemnity. On appeal, Glory Chapel claims that (1) the court erred in striking its original complaint on the basis of misjoinder, (2) even if the claims in its original complaint were properly stricken, the court erred by rejecting the substitute complaint that it filed pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44, and (3) the court erred by sustaining Philadelphia Indemnity's objection to an offer of compromise that Glory Chapel filed during the pendency of this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Glory Chapel on its second claim that the trial court improperly rejected its substitute complaint, but we disagree with it on its other claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45600 - Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. ("The issue at the core of this appeal is, in the context of a dispute regarding insurance coverage for business losses suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether the operative complaint contained sufficient allegations to withstand a motion to strike pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39. The plaintiff, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company, following the partial granting of its motion to strike and the subsequent withdrawal of the remaining claims set forth in the plaintiff's operative complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that a policy exclusion for contamination caused by a virus applied to the majority of its claims for coverage and (2) our Supreme Court's decisions in Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 346 Conn. 33, 288 A.3d 187 (2023) (CT Dermatology), and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Moda, LLC, 346 Conn. 64, 288 A.3d 206 (2023) (Moda), both of which were released subsequent to the trial court's decision in the present case, do not provide an alternative basis to affirm the trial court's granting of the motion to strike. We disagree with both of the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC45433 - Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Arbella Protection Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that, pursuant to a commercial general liability policy, the defendant had no duty to defend the plaintiff against a counterclaim filed by a third party in an action arising out of a contract for the construction of a modular home. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5794

AC46298 - Hine Builders, LLC v. Glasscock (“The defendants, Alex Glasscock and Susan Glasscock, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the application to compel arbitration filed by the plaintiff, Hine Builders, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) committed plain error in granting the application to compel arbitration (a) following a remote status conference that was not transcribed or recorded by a court reporter or court recording monitor and (b) without providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the issues in connection with the application, (2) failed to review an agreement executed by the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff sought to compel arbitration, before granting the application, and (3) improperly granted the application when the prerequisites to arbitration, as set forth in the parties’ agreement, had not been satisfied. We do not reach the merits of the defendants’ claims because, during the pendency of this appeal and following the termination of the appellate stay, arbitration proceedings commenced as ordered by the trial court, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.”)


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5764

SC20803 - Stiegler v. Meriden ("The plaintiffs are three firefighters who retired during ongoing contract negotiations between their municipal employer and their union regarding a wage reopener to their collective bargaining agreement. After the effective dates of their retirements, an arbitration panel issued an interest arbitration award pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 7-473c of the Municipal Employee Relations Act, General Statutes § 7-460 et seq., granting all firefighters in that municipality a retroactive wage increase. The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action, alleging, among other things, that they were entitled to a recalculation of their pension benefits to reflect the retroactive wage increase. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and rendered judgment in their favor on the breach of contract claims. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, on the merits, that the trial court had incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a recalculation of their pension benefits. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction but erroneously determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive a retroactive increase in their pension benefits and, therefore, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5744

SC20774 - Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc. (“In this certified appeal, we consider the propriety of a jury’s damages award for a consumer’s revocation of acceptance of a motor vehicle pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and, in particular, General Statutes § 42a-2-711. The plaintiff, Erin C. Hassett, appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s denial of her motion for additur and rendering judgment in accordance with the verdict against the defendant, Secor’s Auto Center, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying her motion for additur. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5743

AC45239 - Jacques v. Jacques ("The plaintiff, Jean-Marc Jacques, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney's fees to his former wife, the defendant, Muriel Jacques. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in awarding the defendant $51,641 in attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the American rule by concluding that the underlying breach of contract action he brought against the defendant was entirely without color and brought in bad faith. In particular, he claims that the court's award was not supported by the requisite factual findings that are required under the bad faith exception. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new hearing on the defendant's motion for attorney's fees.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5736

AC45707 - E. I. du Pont de Numours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (“This breach of contract case, which was commenced by the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), in 2014, was first tried to the trial court in 2018, after which the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation, on the ground that DuPont failed to strictly comply with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) between the parties. Our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings on the breach of contract claims. See E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp., 336 Conn. 194, 218, 244 A.3d 130 (2020). Following its review of the record from the first trial and further briefing from the parties, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred in rejecting its breach of contract claims as to certain fire protection systems in that it failed to determine the applicable law and apply that law to the evidence to determine whether those fire protection systems violated the Arkansas State Fire Code, and (2) the court misinterpreted the applicable federal regulations and improperly concluded that those regulations did not require the replacement of certain refrigeration units that leaked ozone depleting substances at rates exceeding the statutory threshold for several consecutive years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5735

AC45072 - Dessa, LLC v. Riddle ("The plaintiff landlord, Dessa, LLC, commenced the underlying action against the defendants, Peter Riddle (Peter) and his son, Jonathan Riddle (Jonathan), to collect unpaid rent pursuant to a written lease agreement that was allegedly entered into between the parties. Jonathan appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of $11,113.06. Jonathan claims that (1) newly discovered evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff interfered with the court's ability to be impartial and equitable in this case, and (2) the court's findings are clearly erroneous. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5664

AC45220 - Schofield v. Rafley, Inc. (“This action sounding in breach of contract and employment discrimination follows a prior action commenced in 2017 between the same parties that involved similar claims (2017 action). See Schofield v. Rafley, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-17-6078256-S (May 14, 2020). The substitute plaintiff, Andrea Sadler, executor of the estate of Lydia Schofield (decedent), now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Rafley, Inc. (Rafley), Joseph Mason, and Karen Mason. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the decedent’s employment discrimination count as untimely and (2) granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Rafley on the breach of contract count. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5653

AC45606 - HM Construction & Painting, LLC v. 32 Wilmot Place, LLC (“The plaintiff, HM Construction & Painting, LLC, appeals from the judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants1 in these related actions sounding in breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly rendered judgments for the defendants because the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were not supported by admissible evidence, (2) the court failed to consider the defendants’ alleged bad faith in asserting a special defense, and (3) the court abused its discretion by rendering its decision on the motions for summary judgment on April 11, 2022, despite having indicated that it intended to hold a status conference prior to ruling on the motions, which it did not do. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5644

AC45118 - Kennynick, LLC v. Standard Petroleum Co. (“The plaintiff Kennynick, LLC, appeals, and the defendant, Standard Petroleum Company, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court in this dispute between a wholesale gasoline distributor and a retail gasoline dealer. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) calculated the applicable time period for which it awarded prejudgment interest, (2) concluded that the plaintiff had not established violations of either the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act (CPFA), General Statutes § 42-133j et seq., or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (3) permitted the defendant to offer evidence to support unpleaded special defenses of offset or recoupment. In its cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) construed the contract between the parties to require it to pass along a federal tax credit to the plaintiff and (2) denied its special defenses of waiver and voluntary payment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45740 - Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC (“The plaintiff, Dejan Robert Cokic, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding $2360.89 in attorney’s fees to the defendant Village Marina, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion in awarding the defendant attorney’s fees on the basis of its conclusion that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant were brought without color and in bad faith. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5595

AC44975 - CCI Computerworks, LLC v. Evernet Consulting, LLC (“The defendant, Evernet Consulting, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, CCI Computerworks, LLC, on the defendant’s counterclaim asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the agreement executed by the parties attributed liability to the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff, for unemployment taxes, plus interest and penalties, assessed on the defendant by the Department of Labor (department), or (2) in the alternative, the plaintiff was not unjustly enriched by the defendant’s payment of the unemployment taxes, interest, and penalties. We conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the defendant’s counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the court rendered in its favor on count one of its second amended complaint asserting breach of contract. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of a settlement offer, (2) admitted the settlement evidence in full into the record, (3) relied on the settlement evidence to conclude that it had failed to mitigate its damages, and (4) failed to adjudicate its claim that the defendant breached the parties’ agreement by crediting certain costs against the payments that the defendant owed pursuant to the agreement. We agree with the plaintiff’s claims of error regarding the settlement evidence, but we disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the court overlooked one of its claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court rendered on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5589

AC45274 - Fraser Lane Associates, LLC v. Chip Fund 7, LLC . (The defendant, Chip Fund 7, LLC, appeals from the judgments of the trial court confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Fraser Lane Associates, LLC, and denying the defendant’s application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred because (1) the arbitration award violates public policy, (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the arbitration agreement, and (3) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5581

AC44836, AC45267 - Barbara v. Colonial Surety Co. ("In Docket No. AC 44836, Colonial appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment in the Barbaras’ action, in which it asserted that the Barbaras’ claims were precluded pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. In Docket No. AC 45267, the Barbaras appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of Colonial’s motion for summary judgment in the indemnity action. On appeal, Colonial claims that the court improperly concluded that the Barbaras’ action is not precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, and the Barbaras claim that the court improperly concluded that they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to their allegations that Colonial acted in bad faith in settling the New York action. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")