AC45832 - Mystic Oil Co. v. Shaukat, LLC (“The defendants Shaukat, LLC (Shaukat), and Raja Shaukat Ali appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a hearing in damages following the rendering of summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the plaintiff, Mystic Oil Company, Inc., with respect to its claims for breach of contract and breach of guarantee. Specifically, the defendants challenge on appeal (1) the court’s award of certain damages and (2) the court’s granting of the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46512 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Durant (“The defendant, Fred N. Durante, also known as Fred N. Durante, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for approval of trial court and appellate costs and attorney’s fees filed by the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion because it was untimely under Practice Book § 11-21 and was made without any showing of excusable neglect to permit the late filing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46128 - Ryder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. ("The plaintiff, Gary Ryder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motions to set aside the jury's verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict 'to the extent that the verdict awarded no damages to the plaintiff,' (2) precluded the plaintiff from presenting evidence relevant to the damages incurred after November, 2014, when he transferred title to the property to a trust, (3) denied his motions to set aside the verdict as inadequate and for additur, and (4) denied his postjudgment motion to consolidate the underlying action with the defendant's related foreclosure action against the plaintiff. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Foreclosure Law,
• Property Law

SC20797 - Collier v. Adar Hartford Realty, LLC ("This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for class certification. The plaintiffs, former residents of Barbour Gardens, a housing development in the city of Hartford (city), instituted this action in connection with the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during their residency. They sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees from the owner of Barbour Gardens and its property management company, and alleged various tort, contract, equitable, and statutory claims, including a claim of a violation of a provision of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110g. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class on behalf 'of all persons who lived at Barbour Gardens for any or all of the time between June 24, 2004, and October 13, 2019,' which the trial court denied on the grounds that individualized issues would predominate over class-wide issues and that a class action is not a superior method to resolve the plaintiffs' claims. See Practice Book § 9-8 (3). In this appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110h, the plaintiffs contend that there is sufficient evidence in the record common to the entire class to satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements. We reject this claim due to the lengthy period of time for which class certification was requested—covering all residents at Barbour Gardens at any time over a span of more than fifteen years—and the absence of generalized evidence in the record concerning the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during most of the proposed class period. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45666 - Haworth Country Club, LLC v. United Bank ("The plaintiff, Haworth Country Club, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of Newberry Village Holdings, LLC (NVH), appeals, following the granting of a motion to strike, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, United Bank, on all counts of the plaintiff's third amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in ruling on the motion to strike, the court (1) did not apply the proper legal standard, (2) erred in concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a cause of action against the defendant, and that the plaintiff's status as a noncustomer of the defendant is dispositive as to preclude any allegations of liability against the defendant, (3) erred in concluding that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant violated banking statutes and regulations regarding what a bank is required to do before opening an account for a customer are not allegations of conduct offensive to public policy under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and that General Statutes § 35-1 is inapplicable to the plaintiff's claims, and (4) improperly failed to address that the defendant, as of the date of service of this action, was on notice that the subject bank account had been opened under an improper and fictitious name and that the money in the account was owned by another party. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46268 - Stoor v. Vehs (“The intervening plaintiff, Attorney Gregory P. Cohan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a court trial wherein the court determined that the plaintiff, Zachary Stoor, owed Cohan $9000 for his services as the plaintiff’s attorney. Specifically, Cohan claims that the court improperly awarded him less than the amount provided for in his contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that ‘the discharge of an attorney in a contingency fee case prior to settlement does not constitute a breach of contract under Connecticut law and the award of damages for quantum meruit under [the breach of contract count] . . . was improper.’ As to both the appeal and cross appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46483 - Martin v. Olson (“The plaintiff, Daniel A. Martin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Christopher R. Olson, executor of the estate of Robert K. Olson (decedent). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) instructed the jury regarding the defendant’s statute of limitations defense, (2) admitted into evidence certain testimony, and (3) permitted the defendant to present the testimony of undisclosed witnesses during his case-in-chief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

“The plaintiff brought causes of action sounding in breach of express oral contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and ‘breach of promise to nominate as beneficiary.’ In support of these claims, the plaintiff testified at trial that he would have yearly discussions with the decedent during which the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing him with caregiving services. The court reasonably could have determined that the testimony provided by the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother regarding their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate was relevant because it was offered to assist the jury in determining whether it found credible the plaintiff’s testimony that the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing caregiver services. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother to testify to their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.")

• SC20754 Dissent - Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC

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.)

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Contract Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions