11/18/2009
Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc. - SC18317 (“The named plaintiff, David R. Wilcox, and the plaintiff Shaun A. Wilcox, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against the defendant Acadia Insurance Company. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The defendant responds that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are moot.”) 11/9/2009
AC29332 - Keller v. Beckenstein ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the motions for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first count as to whether the defendants were liable for a breach of contractual representations and warranties by commencing litigation against the plaintiffs, and (2) the motion to strike because the complaint sufficiently alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.")
Marshall v. Sawicki SC18225 (Plaintiff retained defendant, a business broker to help him sell his catering business; fiduciary duty; ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant did not provide an adequate record for review to determine whether the trial court had shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove fair dealing?’’) 10/13/2009Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC v. Axtmayer - SC18304 ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority in declining to award attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs, Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care, LLC (Comprehensive), and certain physician members of Comprehensive, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate in part the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4), because it concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by determining that Comprehensive did not 'prevail' on its underlying restrictive covenant claim. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by declining to award attorney’s fees because Comprehensive 'prevailed' under Connecticut law on its underlying claim, and, therefore, the arbitration agreement required the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees.")
Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch - SC18256 ("We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court correctly decide that the defendant insurer had no duty to defend any of the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence?'") 10/5/2009Honulik v. Greenwich - SC18046 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the named defendant, the town of Greenwich (town), and the Silver Shield Association, the union representing the town’s police officers (union), governs the promotion to the position of police captain, which is a position outside the bargaining unit, and requires that the candidate with the highest assessment score on a promotional examination be awarded the promotion.")
9/28/2009Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Computer Sciences — SC18223 ("This is the second of two appeals brought by the plaintiff, Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. (Coldwell Banker), in connection with a real estate transaction involving Coldwell Banker, the defendant, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), and Cushman and Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. (Cushman). In the present appeal, Coldwell Banker claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the decision of the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors, Inc. (association), to dismiss as untimely Coldwell Banker’s request for arbitration of its claims against CSC constituted an arbitration award for purposes of General Statutes § 52-417,3 and, as a result, the court improperly confirmed the alleged award. Coldwell Banker further contends that the trial court improperly (1) granted CSC’s motion to stay pending arbitration, thus compelling Coldwell Banker to arbitrate with a third party who was not a signatory to any contract or a member of any association to which Coldwell Banker also belonged that required arbitration, (2) determined that a contract existed between Coldwell Banker and the association when there was no admission by the parties that there was such a contract and no evidence presented to support that fact, and (3) determined that CSC was entitled to enforce the arbitration provisions of the association’s bylaws and code of ethics as a third party beneficiary. CSC responds that the trial court properly determined that the association’s dismissal of the arbitration request as untimely constituted an award subject to confirmation by the trial court and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Coldwell Banker’s claims against CSC. CSC also argues that the trial court properly stayed Coldwell Banker’s claims pending arbitration because (1) Coldwell Banker’s agreement to arbitrate contractual disputes with its clients pursuant to the association’s bylaws and code of ethics is enforceable, (2) CSC was an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and (3) an intended third party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement may enforce a promise to arbitrate.")
Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. — SC18222 ("This is one of two separate appeals arising out of a real estate transaction involving the plaintiff, Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. (Coldwell Banker), the named defendant, Cushman and Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. (Cushman), and Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). In the present appeal, Coldwell Banker claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the decision of the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors, Inc. (association), to dismiss as untimely Coldwell Banker’s request for arbitration of claims against Cushman constituted an arbitration award for purposes of General Statutes § 52- 4174 and, therefore, that the court’s confirmation of the alleged award and its subsequent dismissal of Coldwell Banker’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also were improper. Coldwell Banker further contends that the trial court improperly concluded that its request for arbitration (1) was unrestricted, (2) applied to the two individual defendants, namely, Joel M. Grieco and Robert E. Kelly, who served as Cushman’s agents during the real estate transaction, and (3) encompassed several claims that, according to Coldwell Banker, were not contained in its request. Cushman responds that the trial court properly determined that the association’s dismissal of the arbitration request as untimely constituted an arbitration award subject to confirmation by the trial court and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Coldwell Banker’s claims. It also contends that Coldwell Banker’s arbitration request was unrestricted and, consequently, applied to Grieco and Kelly, and to both the contract and noncontract claims. Cushman finally contends that the trial court’s judgment may be affirmed on the alternate ground that, even if this court concludes that the award applies only to the contract claims against Cushman, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the noncontract claims and the claims against Grieco and Kelly because those claims are exclusively arbitrable and there has been no arbitration.")
9/25/2009
Paradigm Contract Management Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. — SC18301 ("This case presents the narrow issue of whether any claim that may be asserted against a labor and material payment bond required by General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 49-411 must be asserted within the time limit provided in General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 49-42 (b). The plaintiff. . .brought this action against the defendant. . .seeking to enforce, pursuant to § 49-41, a labor and material payment bond that the defendant had executed in connection with a municipal construction project. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in § 49-42 (b). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that § 49-42 (b) does not apply to this action because the plaintiff had not brought the action pursuant to § 49-42 but, rather, had brought a common-law action on the bond, and the parties had entered into a tolling agreement whereby they had agreed to extend the statute of limitations.") 9/10/2009
Saunders v. Firtel - SC18309 (Employment; recovering unpaid wages and double damages pursuant to statute (§§ 31-71c and § 31-72); definition of employee; breach of contract; dissolution of limited liability company; “On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) invoked § 31-72 in awarding wages to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not an ‘employee’ of Adco within the meaning of § 31-72, (2) calculated the amount of wages awarded to the plaintiff for 2004 by failing to prorate the plaintiff’s salary on the basis of the number of months that he had worked in that year, (3) awarded double damages to the plaintiff pursuant to § 31-72, and (4) ordered the dissolution of Barbur.”)
9/2/2009
AC29440 Campagnone v. Clark (Home improvement contract; CUTPA violation; defendant was not registered as a home improvement contractor while engaging in construction work with the plaintiffs; "The plaintiffs first claim that the court improperly (1) found Newton’s remediation proposal for exterior work to be unnecessarily costly and (2) declined to award them $750 in damages for the defendant’s failure to construct the bifold doors. ...Last, the plaintiffs claim that the act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; and specifically General Statutes § 20-429 (a), prohibited the court from offsetting the plaintiffs’ damages award by an amount equal to the unpaid balance remaining on the contract as a matter of law.")
AC29822 Sullivan v. Brown (Breach of contract; CUPTA violation; jurisdiction; "...[W]hether the court’s March 31, 2008 decision that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees was an appealable final judgment in light of the fact that the court indicated that the plaintiff may move for a hearing on costs and attorney’s fees but the hearing had not been held and the amount of attorney’s fees, if any, had not yet been decided.")
AC30199 Tuccio Custom Homes, LLC v. Lamonica (Breach of contract; summary judgment; whether court improperly concluded that action was barred by res judicata)
AC29835 Tsionis v. Martens ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the court improperly determined that a contract existed between the parties and (2) in the alternative, if a contract did exist, then the court improperly determined that the contract was not terminated under the mortgage contingency clause.")
AC29998 Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Insurance contract; summary judgment; alleged breach of cooperation clause in liability insurance policy; "The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) Glatzel had filed federal and state income tax returns for the years 2001 through 2006 and (2) he failed to provide these returns to the defendant. ... Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court demanded ‘‘absolute perfection, not substantial compliance,’’ in determining that the plaintiff had failed to cooperate with the investigation as required by the terms of the insurance contract.")
AC30206 Gianetti v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc.("...[T]he plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the authenticity of the health care policy submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment.")
AC29724 LeBlanc v. New England Raceway, LLC (Attempt to convert dog racing track into NASCAR racetrack; "...[P]laintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) shifted the burden to them to prove that the defendants approved the changes made to the contract, (2) found that by signing a dual agency agreement the parties revoked the authority of the real estate agent to bind the defendants, (3) made or failed to make various findings of fact and (4) allowed the defendants to amend their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint." 8/31/2009Envirotest Systems Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles - SC18156 ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-164c (e), by force of necessary implication, waives the state’s sovereign immunity from suit. The defendant, the commissioner of motor vehicles (commissioner), appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the action of the plaintiff, Envirotest Systems Corporation, claiming that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.")
Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation - SC18142 ("This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, Columbia Air Services, Inc., against the defendants, the department of transportation (department) and its commissioner, Stephen E. Korta II (commissioner), in connection with the proposed development of certain land located at the Groton- New London Airport (airport). The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants after the trial court had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to three of the counts.") 8/20/2009
SS-II, LLC v. Bridge Street Associates SC18271 (Contract; specific performance; statute of frauds; equitable estoppel; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff...is entitled to specific performance of an option to purchase property owned by the defendant... under the terms of a commercial lease agreement between the parties." 8/17/2009
Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co. SC18118 (Breach of contract; implied contract; whether plaintiffs' performance of glass repairs constituted acceptance of terms of pricing letters; "...[W]hether the plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proving that the defendant had breached the terms of the insurance policies assigned to the plaintiffs by refusing to pay the amounts stated in the plaintiffs’ invoices.") 8/3/2009
Sokaitis v. Bakaysa - SC18130 ("The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-5532 applies to, and makes void, a contract entered into by the plaintiff, Theresa Sokaitis, and the defendant, Rose Bakaysa, to share equally the proceeds of their legal gambling activities. On appeal, the defendant challenges the Appellate Court’s determination that the contract between the parties was not covered by § 52-553.") 7/7/2009
AC29616 Drain Dr. Inc. v. Jason Lyman (Motion to strike; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held (1) that plumbing and piping work is subject to the provisions of the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., and (2) that the exemption in the Home Improvement Act for licensed plumbers did not apply to the plaintiff because the work it performed was beyond what it was licensed to do."
AC29126 Lewis v. Frazao Building Corp. (Home improvement contract; breach of contract; "The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of fact made by the attorney fact finder, (2) considered the plaintiff’s claim under the clearly erroneous standard of review and (3) failed to find Frazao personally liable for the breach of contract.")
AC29721 Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC. (Unjust enrichment; "...a purchaser of goods and intangibles challenges the validity of a jury verdict holding it liable for damages for unjust enrichment despite a concurrent jury finding of breach of contract by the vendors. The purchaser also challenges the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees.") 6/1/2009
Wasniewski v. Quick & Reilly, Inc. - SC18160 ("The plaintiff initiated this breach of contract action to recover funds that his father had deposited without the plaintiff’s knowledge in an account bearing the plaintiff’s name at the defendant brokerage firm. The certified issues in this appeal are: (1) whether ‘the Appellate Court [majority] properly conclude[d] that valid delivery of an inter vivos gift was effected by the plaintiff’s father to the plaintiff’; and (2) whether ‘the Appellate Court [majority] properly determine[d] that the plaintiff was the intended third party beneficiary of [an] alleged contract entered into between the plaintiff’s father and the defendant . . . .’”)
American Progressive Life & Health Ins. Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLC - SC17940 ("Although the defendants contest the propriety of the granting of the motion for summary judgment on several grounds, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly granted the motion when it challenged the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim, and the defendants were not given the opportunity to replead.") 5/8/2009
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority - SC17946, SC18109 ("The named defendant, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, in two separate appeals, challenges the judgment of the trial court awarding a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs after finding that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by its retention of certain lawsuit settlement proceeds, and certain postjudgment orders.") 5/6/2009
Here is the contract law opinion for April 2009:
- AC30028 General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi
(Defendants guaranteed all obligations incurred by Inter-Island Air, Inc. (Inter-Island), a corporation organized under the laws of Puerto Rico, to the plaintiff under a lease agreement for an aircraft; whether the trial court improperly granted the application for the prejudgment remedy because the judge had incorrectly determined that the contemplated action supporting the plaintiff’s application was an independent domestic action rather than an action in aid of a pending foreign action that is not contemplated by the prejudgment remedy statutes; whether the court misapplied the law of the case doctrine with respect to the determination that the contemplated action supporting the plaintiff’s application was an independent domestic action rather than an action in aid of a pending foreign action.) 4/29/2009
Flater v. Grace (SC18253) (Motion to open judgment; judgment issued against defendant for defendant's failure to complete and satisfactorily perform home improvement contract; "The essence of the defendant’s claim is that it was an abuse of discretion and inequitable for the court not to open the judgment because the defendant, in deciding not to defend against the claims, had relied on an estimate that the plaintiffs submitted prior to the hearing in damages of only $7075 for the completion of the contract.") 4/17/2009
Bluefin Mortgage Fund, LLC v. Speer - SC18246 ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court, awarding damages to the plaintiffs, Bluefin Mortgage Fund, LLC (Bluefin), and PFH Mortgage, LLC (PFH), arising from the defendant’s breach of a commercial loan contract. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s judgment was improper because: (1) the original agreement entered into by the parties was not a valid contract on account of a mutual mistake by the parties regarding a material term of that agreement; and (2) the trial court improperly based its decision on a second ‘‘revised’’ agreement, the terms of which the defendant had not agreed to and the existence of which the plaintiffs had not pleaded.") 4/3/2009
AC29770 Catrini v. Erickson (Contract providing that any disputes arising from agreement would be submitted to final and binding arbitration; C.G.S. §52-409; Whether trial "...court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's action.")
AC28703 Blacker v. Crapo (Defendant contractor "...claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that he violated CUTPA, (2) concluded that he breached his contract with the plaintiffs and (3) found that he received a certified letter from the plaintiffs’ attorney before beginning work on the plaintiffs’ roof.")
AC29319 Grey v. CT Indemnity Services, Inc. (Breach of contract; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that she had waived her contractual right to arbitration and that the plaintiffs had not waived their contractual claim for attorney’s fees.")
AC29030 Urich v. Fish (Breach of contract; sale of yacht to defendant; "The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) awarded additional attorney’s fees to the defendant even though he was not a prevailing party under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), GeneralStatutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to postjudgment interest on his 1998 judgment.")
AC29045 JSA Financial Corp. v. Quality Kitchen Corp. of Delaware (Guarantee contract; statute of limitations; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) his obligations pursuant to a guarantee contract were extended by a partial payment made by the debtor, Quality Kitchen Corporation of Delaware (Quality Kitchen), and (2) he had abandoned the claim for an accounting.") 3/6/2009
AC28982 O & G Industries, Inc. v. All Phase Enterprises, Inc.
Breach of contract; damages; indemnification
("[Whether] the court should have ordered Metal Siding to indemnify All Phase for the attorney’s fees that All Phase incurred defending the first party action brought by O & G ...and [whether the court]... also should have ordered Metal Siding to indemnify All Phase for the attorney’s fees that All Phase was ordered to pay to O & G on O & G’s successful complaint. All Phase further claims that the court improperly deducted from its indemnification award against Metal Siding an amount that O & G had been retaining on work performed by All Phase, which money rightfully was due to All Phase." Whether court should not have awarded damages to O & G based on "betterment" of roof but should have awarded damages only for the cost of repairing the steel roof.)
Vermont Mutual Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz - SC18061 ("The primary question raised by this appeal is whether provisions in the liability insurance portion of a homeowner’s insurance policy (policy) that afford indemnification for damages resulting from accidents, but not for intentionally caused injuries, preclude coverage for an insured who, when acting in selfdefense, causes bodily injury to another....Brown appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, determining that the policy did not afford coverage. He argues that, because the court misinterpreted the relevant terms of the policy to deny coverage regardless of whether an insured is acting in self-defense, it improperly excluded evidence of Walukiewicz’ subjective intent at the time of the altercation and of the extent of Brown’s injuries and, further, improperly instructed the jury as to the standards to apply.") 2/2/2009
-
AC29031 — Curly v. Kaiser, et al.[Partnership; summary judgment]
(“Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) applied General Statutes § 34-373, (2) failed to rely on certain events that led to the dissolution and termination of the partnership prior to Kaiser’s death, which the plaintiff posits demonstrated that the partnership was no longer in existence, and (3) concluded that a provision in the 2001 amendment governed after Kaiser’s death.”)
1/6/2009
-
AC28650 - Peterson v. Woldeyohannes
Oral partnership; disciplinary default “...[whether] the court (1) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and (2) improperly permitted the defendant to deny liability on the merits of the action and consequently, improperly denied any damages award to the plaintiff."
-
AC29011 Dartmoor Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Guarco
Breach of contract; statutory construction; whether the court improperly rendered judgment without holding a hearing on defendant's objections to fact finder's report
12/24/2008
Hees v. Burke Construction, Inc.- SC18075 ("The principal issue in this appeal is whether a violation of the Home Improvement Act (act), § 20-418 et seq., and specifically, § 20-429 (a), precludes a home improvement contractor from reducing the damages that it owes for breach of contract to a nonbreaching homeowner by an amount equal to the unpaid balance remaining on the contract.")
12/17/2008
AC29341 Joseph Eremita v. Salvatore Morello (Breach of contract; inadequate record for review; whether trial court abused its discretion in refusing to open the judgment of dismissal because plaintiff's absence at trial was the result of inadvertence.)
AC29260 Data-Flow Technologies, LLC. v. Harte Nissan, Inc. (Breach of contract; unjust enrichment; plaintiff serviced defendant's computer equipment and a dispute ensued over the amount owed; whether trial court improperly accepted conclusions of fact in the fact finder's report that were not based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, whether court improperly accepted fact finder's report because it contained contradictory factual findings; whether fact finder improperly admitted evidence.)
12/1/2008
State v. Philip Morris, Inc., Et Al - SC18133 (Arbitration; motion to compel arbitration; qaulifying statute; "The sole issue presented in this certified appeal is whether the current dispute between the defendants and the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut (state), is subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the tobacco litigation master settlement agreement (agreement) to which the defendants and the state are parties.") 10/31/2008
Below is a list of contract law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2008:
-
AC28206 Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (Breach of contract; Insurance; Plaintiff's inventory of fish at each of its hatcheries were insured by defendants. "Defendants claim that on remand, the court improperly awarded the plaintiff, ... interest under General Statutes § 37-3a. They claim that the court (1) exceeded the scope of this court’s remand in Mariculture I, (2) incorrectly interpreted the parties’ stipulation regarding interest to include interest under Connecticut law, (3) rendered supplemental judgment to award interest under § 37-3a even though the necessary predicate factual findings were never made by the jury and (4) improperly applied a substantive Connecticut law when Maine law governed.")
- AC28208 Rosenfield v. Marder and Associates, LLC, Et Al. (Breach of Contract; legal malpractice; summary judgment; statute of limitations "Plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was commenced beyond the applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-581.")
- AC29132 Giannetti v. Anthem Blue Cross & Shield of Connecticut (Breach of contract; medical insurance; summary judgment; whether the court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment by concluding, in part, that the evidence he submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment ought not to have been considered because it was not authenticated properly.)
- AC29260 Data-flow Technologies, LLC v. Harte Nissan, Inc. (Breach of Contract; unjust enrichment; computer maintenance contract; whether the "... court improperly accepted conclusions of fact in the fact finder's report that were not based on the evidence adduced at the hearing"; whether plaintiff who can only recover under the theory of unjust enrichment must present evidence of the value of the benefit received by the defendant; whether the court improperly accepted the fact finder's report because it contained contradictory factual findings.)
- AC29341 Eremita v. Morello (Breach of contract; dismissal for failure of plaintiff to make out a prima facie case; whether trial court improperly denied plaintiff's motion to open judgment on the basis of mistake or accident.)
10/10/2008
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore - SC18081 (Contracts; Whether Defense Counsel Engaged in Misconduct by Commenting on Evidence Ruled Inadmissible; Whether Jury Engaged in Misconduct by Considering Inadmissible Evidence; Whether Electricity Meter Test Results were Properly Admitted under the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule.)
8/4/2008
Taylor v. Mucci - SC18062 (Insurance; Whether Insurance Policy's "Per Person" or "Per Accident" Liability Limit for Bodily Injury Claims Applies to Plaintiff's Bystander Emotional Distress Claim.)
National Publishing Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. - SC17647 (Insurance; Whether Court Improperly Refused to Charge Jury on Special Defense that Insured Failed to Give Prompt Notice of Loss; Harmless Error.) [SC17647 Dissent] 6/12/2008
Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Milazzo - SC18001
Contracts; Statute of Limitations for Nonpayment of a Commercial Note, General Statutes § 52-576; Whether the Trial Court Properly Concluded that the Applicable Statute of Limitations was not Tolled for the Time Period the Defendant was Out of the State Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-590.
Zulick v. Patrons Mutual Ins. Co. - SC18030 (Insurance; Personal Property; Whether the Coverage Limit in Homeowner's Insurance Policy for Personal Property Kept in Uninsured Residential Premises Applied to Personal Property Kept in a Barn and a Carriage House.) 6/4/2008
Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. BFA Ltd. Partnership - SC18017 (Contracts; interpretation of conflicting language concerning duration of indemnity obligation in environmental indemnity agreement and subsequent reaffirmation of agreement; whether defendants' indemnification obligation was not extinguished by foreclosure because the reaffirmation of the indemnity agreement was a ratification of the indemnity agreement that incorporated its durational terms). 5/27/2008
Royal Indemnity Co v. Terra Firma, Inc. - SC17873, SC17874 (Summary judgment; declaratory judgment; whether general contractor was entitled to coverage as "additional insured'' under general liability insurance policy and umbrella insurance policy; claim that general contractor was not covered under insurance policies issued to subcontractor and, therefore, that they were not bound to indemnify or defend general contractor in personal injury actions brought by injured employees of subcontractor; whether general contractor's liability "arose out of'' subcontractor's work under terms of insurance policies). 5/9/2008
Dept. of Transportation v. White Oak Corp. SC 17828 [Pubic works contracts; sovereign immunity; res judicata; whether trial court properly concluded that contractor was entitled to seek further arbitration] [docket summary] 3/17/2008
Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade - SC17848, SC17849 [docket summary - Mechanic's Liens; Foreclosure; Recovery for Materials Furnished or Services Rendered under General Statutes § 49-33 (a); Whether Finding of Substantial Performance is Required in Order to Recover on Mechanic's Lien Based on Contract Price; Whether Complaint was Properly Amended After Trial.]
TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman - SC17867 [docket summary - Prejudgment Remedy; Whether Contract Provision was Void as Against Public Policy; Whether Defendant Enjoyed Immunity for Statements to Regulatory Agencies; Whether Penalty Provision was Enforceable as Liquidated Damages Clause.] 2/11/2008
The following Supreme Court opinion was released today:
Borelli v. H & H Contracting Inc. SC17917 [docket summary] (Pleadings; admissions; where the defendant contractor admitted by answer and affirmatively alleged by counterclaim that it had contracted to install a septic system to the architect's specifications, could the trial court properly disregard those admissions or was the trial court required to consider the evidence in light of those admissions?).
Visit the Connecticut Judicial Branch website for links to the full text of the opinions after 11:30 am.
1/25/2008
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Paradis - SC17756, SC17757 [Insurance; Whether General Statutes § 31-293a Mandates That Employer's Umbrella Coverage Apply to Employee Involved in Car Accident; Whether Terms of Policy Were Ambiguous With Respect to Definition of Insured.]
[docket summary] 1/22/2008First National Bank of Litchfield v. Miller - SC17750, SC17774 [Acceptance of Goods; Whether Buyers had Reasonable Opportunity to Inspect Boat Before Purchasing it; Whether General Statutes § 42-100c, Which Obligates a Creditor to Investigate a Debtor's Complaint of Error in a Retail Credit Account Statement, Applied to the Transaction] [ docket summary] 12/14/2007There was one Connecticut Supreme Court opinion released today:
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co.- SC17625 (Breach of contract; declaratory judgment; summary judgment; claim by plaintiffs that asbestos claims, which all arose from insureds' handling, distribution and sale of asbestos products, fell within ambit of common cause language in reinsurance contract's definition of any one accident'').
11/7/2007
Mystic Color Lab, Inc. v. Auctions Worldwide, LLC - SC17838 (Auctions; breach of contract; common-law conversion; statutory (§ 52-564) theft; treble damages; whether relationship between auctioneer and seller gives rise to fiduciary duty of auctioneer to hold auction proceeds in trust for seller; whether trial court incorrectly determined that defendants were liable to plaintiff for common-law conversion and statutory theft; whether trial court improperly awarded plaintiff treble damages; whether defendant auctioneer's relationship with plaintiff seller was one of debtor and creditor or one of bailee and bailor; whether plaintiff had property interest in proceeds from auction that defendant auctioneer had conducted for plaintiff). |
|
|
|