203 Conn.App. 182
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Plaintiff Joann Anderson owned a single-family home that needed a new roof and applied for Bloomfield’s residential rehabilitation assistance program.
- Under the program the town contracted with Plourde Enterprises (defendant) to perform specified work at several addresses, including Anderson’s; the town paid Plourde $12,000 for Anderson’s roof.
- Plourde completed the roof in July 2013; in October 2013 Anderson discovered leaks, mold, and other damage allegedly caused by a defective installation.
- Anderson sued Plourde (after withdrawing claims against the town) asserting Plourde breached its contract with the town and that she was an intended third-party beneficiary entitled to sue Plourde.
- Plourde moved to dismiss for lack of standing, supplying an affidavit and the contract; the trial court granted dismissal holding Anderson was not an intended third-party beneficiary as a matter of law.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the contract language was ambiguous as to intent and that whether Anderson was an intended third-party beneficiary (and thus had standing) is a factual question requiring an evidentiary hearing and resolution at trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson had standing as an intended third-party beneficiary of the town–Plourde contract | Anderson: she was the intended beneficiary because the contract specifically identified her address and the work was for her home | Plourde: Anderson was neither a party nor an intended beneficiary; at most a foreseeable beneficiary, so no standing | Court: Contract is ambiguous on intent; cannot resolve standing on motion to dismiss — issue for fact finder at evidentiary hearing/trial |
| Whether the trial court could decide standing on the motion to dismiss based on submitted affidavit and contract | Anderson: where intent is unclear, court must allow evidentiary proof and reserve issue for fact finder | Plourde: submitted contract and affidavit support dismissal | Court: where jurisdictional facts are disputed and intertwined with merits, an evidentiary hearing is required; dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293 (discusses foreseeability vs. intended third-party beneficiary)
- Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Dev. Corp., 266 Conn. 572 (intent of both contracting parties controls third-party beneficiary status)
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoia, 232 Conn. 223 (proper test is whether contract creates a direct obligation to third party; intent is usually a factual question)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (evidentiary hearing required when jurisdictional facts are disputed and intertwined with merits)
- Wykeham Rise, LLC v. Federer, 305 Conn. 448 (summary of third-party beneficiary doctrine)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (when contract language is unambiguous, court need not consider extrinsic evidence)