138 Conn. App. 661
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff owns property at 33 Knowles Road; defendant, a paving contractor, agreed to build a paved driveway and cart path.
- Written contract and initial proposal claimed defendant was a licensed home improvement contractor; license listed as CT LIC. 645061.
- Work commenced August–October 2008; driveway ~10,000 square feet with base and class II bituminous asphalt; contract increased from $25,000 to $31,300 after modification.
- Court found defendant not licensed at time of contract/work; plaintiff relied on license representation when entering contract.
- Plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of contract, and CUTPA; trial court awarded damages of $18,000 to repair, rejected punitive damages, and reserved attorney’s fees for later determination; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether factual findings were clearly erroneous | Bailey argues findings about non-class II material and improper rolling are supported by record. | Lanou contends findings lack support and mischaracterize asphalt and rolling. | Findings supported; no clear error established. |
| Admissibility/credibility of Airoldi's expert testimony | Airoldi possessed specialized skill; his testimony about material and workmanship was credible. | Challenged credibility/admissibility of expert. | Court did not abuse discretion; admitted and credited Airoldi's testimony. |
| Damages basis for driveway repair | Damages supported by expert, who proposed $18,000 repair cost. | Plaintiff failed to consider less costly options. | Damages properly awarded at $18,000; court credited preferred repair method. |
| CUTPA recovery and ascertainable loss | Violation of Home Improvement Act supports CUTPA damages; ascertainable loss shown by loss of contract and misrepresentation. | Dispute over sufficient ascertainable loss. | Ascertainable loss established; CUTPA damages affirmed. |
| Attorney’s fees final judgment status | Fees sought under § 42-110g(d); not final when appeal filed. | Appeal includes fee awardable issues. | Appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment on attorney’s fees; remainder affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607 (Conn. 1981) (ascertainable loss under CUTPA concept)
- Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 586 (Conn. App. 2003) (ascertainable loss under CUTPA analysis)
- Johnson Electric Co. v. Salce Contracting Associates, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 342 (Conn. App. 2002) (ascertainable loss and CUTPA nexus)
- Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515 (Conn. 1988) (final judgment and attorney’s fees appellate timing)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (Conn. App. 2011) (final judgment—fees on appeal)
- United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (Conn. 2002) (credibility and weight of expert testimony)
- Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 586 (Conn. App. 2003) (addressing ascertainable loss under CUTPA)