Page 29 - CLT081020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 10, 2020 ¦ 29

an abandoned structure in an obvious state of terminated and paid less than it was owed, and
disrepair and as a result of the defendant’s fail- that the breach of the parties’ contract consti-
ure to prevent or abate this dangerous condition, tuted a CUTPA violation. Defendant moved
plaintiffs were unable to sell their property. The for summary judgment as to both claims, argu-
trial court rendered judgment in favor of defen- ing that plaintiff was properly terminated in ac-
dant. Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court cordance with the contract and was owed only
and the court affirmed. Plaintiffs first argued that that percentage of its subcontract fee that cor-
the trial court erred in finding that the defendant responded to the percentage of the subcontract
was not liable because there was no genuine issue work that it completed. Plaintiff acknowledged
of material fact that the defendant did not exer- that defendant’s calculation would be correct in
cise control over the premises at issue, and there- the “normal” case, but argued that this was not
fore did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. such a case. First, that calculation failed to com-
The court noted that the ground lease clearly and pensate plaintiff for scheduling problems that left
unambiguously gave full control of the property its equipment idling. Further, plaintiff argued,
to the United States Postal Service. The court the cap on compensation did not apply because
therefore did not discuss whether defendant exer- White “wrongfully” exercised its option to termi-
cised control over the property, as the lease clear- nate plaintiff. The court denied summary judg-
ly provided that USPS maintained control of the ment as to plaintiff’s contract claim, finding that
property. The court then held that the trial court although plaintiff’s subcontract amount could be
properly granted defendant’s motion for sum- increased only if it submitted proper claims for its
mary judgment as to the private nuisance claim. “idling” costs at the proper time, which it failed to
Because the ground lease gave full control of the do, that did not mean that it might not be entitled
property to the USPS, and therefore USPS was to recover those costs as part of its reasonable
responsible for any repairs or maintenance that expenses. Further, although the parties’ contract
it deemed fit, defendant’s inaction with regard to permitted White to terminate plaintiff “for con-
the property’s condition could not be character- venience,” it also expressly barred White from the
ized as causing a negligent or intentional interfer- “wrongful exercise” of that option. Because that
ence with the plaintiffs’ use of their own property. provision was ambiguous, and because plaintiff’s
entitlement to reasonable expenses remained to
be determined, plaintiff’s claim for breach of
SUPERIOR COURT contract could not be disposed of by summary
judgment. The court granted summary judgment
as to plaintiff’s CUTPA claim, however, find-
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES ing that an alleged breach of contract, standing
alone, is insufficient to support a CUTPA claim.
Ambiguity in Parties’ Contract
Precluded Summary Judgment INSURANCE LITIGATION •
CIVIL PROCEDURE • PERSONAL INJURY
CASE: Maverick Constr. Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co.
COURT: Hartford J.D. Complex Litigation Docket Jurisdictional Claim Cannot Be Decided
DOC. NO.: CV18-6112344 Without Discovery and Full Trial on
COURT OPINION BY: Moukawsher Merits
DATE: July 17, 2020 • PAGES: 5
The court granted in part and denied in part de-
fendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding CASE: Blakey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
triable issues of fact as to plaintiff’s breach of DOC. NO.: CV18-6081124
contract claim, but not as to plaintiff’s Connecti- COURT OPINION BY: Stevens
cut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim. General DATE: July 15, 2020 • PAGES: 7
contractor R.H. White hired plaintiff to do work The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss,
on a construction project. Their contract allowed finding that the jurisdiction issue raised by defen-
White to terminate plaintiff at any time, includ- dant cannot be decided until after discovery and
ing “for convenience.” White later exercised that a full trial on the merits. Plaintiff slipped and fell
option. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and on property owned by Josue Jorge. On the date of
for CUTPA violation, alleging it was wrongfully the accident, Jorge allegedly believed his property

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune