Page 35 - CLT022420

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS FEBRUARY 24, 2020 ¦ 35

Court Holds Collapse Standard defense, and concluded Semac had completed
sixty-five percent of the work, which it used to
Requires A Showing Of Imminent calculate damages for Skanska in the reimbursed
Danger of Actual Collapse in Defective amount. Both parties filed cross-appeals. Semac
argued the trial court erred in rejecting a claim
Concrete Insurance Breach Claim of cardinal change which resulted in delayed con-

CASE: Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. struction of the property prior to electrical wir-
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20178 ing, however the court found Semac was required
COURT OPINION BY: Palmer to anticipate issues of this nature when it submit-
DATE: November 12, 2019 • PAGES: 6 ted bids for the work, and was still required to
perform the same work for which it contracted.
Plaintiffs are homeowners whose basement Skanska argued that the trial court erred in find-
walls began to deteriorate and crumble due to ing it breached by not providing Semac with a
defective concrete. Plaintiffs filed a claim with full 48-hours to cure, as dictated in the contract.
their insurance provider, who denied the claim. The court disagreed and upheld the trial court’s
Plaintiffs sued for breach of the collapse provi- opinion. Skanska argued Semac was not entitled
sions of their homeowners insurance policy and to the cure period, however the court found they
for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insur- were bound by the express language in the con-
ance Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair tract. The court also affirmed the trial court’s
Trade Practices Act. Defendants filed for sum- award calculation.
mary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs did not
offer evidence suggesting the walls or house
were in imminent danger of falling down or CRIMINAL LAW

“collapse” as defined in Beach v. Middlesex Mu- Court Holds Specific Unanimity
tual Assurance Co., and the Supreme Court cer-
tified the question. The court answered that the Instruction Not Required Where
“substantial impairment of structural integrity” Defendant Charged With Multiple
standard required a showing that the building Counts Under a Single Criminal
was in imminent danger of actual collapse.

APPELLATE COURT Subsection

CASE: State of Connecticut v. Douglas C., Jr.
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41245
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES COURT OPINION BY: Prescott
DATE: February 11, 2020 • PAGES: 22
Defendant was convicted at a jury trial on five counts
Court Finds Both Parties In Breach Of of risk of injury to a child for several alleged sexual
Commercial Construction Contract encounters with his five children over several years.
Defendant appealed the conviction, arguing the trial
CASE: Semac Electric Co., Inc. v. Skanska USA Building, Inc. court improperly denied his motion for judgment of
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court acquittal because there was insufficient evidence for
DOC. NO.: AC 41054
COURT OPINION BY: Devlin the jury to convict on one of the counts, and improp-
DATE: February 11, 2020 • PAGES: 22 erly denied a specific unanimity instruction. Defen-
Skanska was retained as general contractor for dant argued that the testimony of one of the children
construction of a new wing of the Stamford hos- was insufficient and the leniency of proof should
pital. Skanska subcontracted with Semac to per- only be allowed for very young children, whereas at
form all necessary electrical work on the project. the time of testimony, the victim was 26 years old.
After contracting for the work, Semac revealed However, the court used the three factor test from
they would not be able to complete the work at State v. Stephen J.R. and determined the jury could
the quoted price. Skanska terminated Semac, and have reasonably concluded there was sufficient evi-
Semac brought a case against Skanska for mate- dence to convict. The defendant also argued the trial
rial breach and wrongful termination, and Skan- court improperly denied his request for a specific
ska filed affirmative defenses and counterclaims. unanimity instruction to the jury, however the court
The trial court found both Semac and Skanska found such an instruction is not always required and
breached the contract, rejected Semac’s special found a court may so instruct where a defendant is

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune