Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim
131 Conn. App. 99
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Steel Point redevelopment in Bridgeport; development agreement among Bridgeport, plaintiff, and United Illuminating; multiple amendments and a planned restated/restated land disposition agreement; city terminated the development agreement around 2000; plaintiff claimed damages including lost profits and overhead and alleged bribery/corruption by defendants; jury returned partial verdict awarding damages to plaintiff and punitive damages later awarded to plaintiff against Lenoci and Ganim.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants acted to oust it as developer in favor of United Properties, including bribery schemes involving Ganim and Lenoci defendants.
- Development approvals were discretionary political acts not guaranteed, causing uncertainty in whether lost profits could be proven.
- Court denied damages for lost profits and overhead as speculative, and limited evidence of prior misconduct; awarded punitive damages under CUTPA against Lenoci and Ganim but after balancing factors.
- Cross-appeals: defendants challenged collateral estoppel and statute of limitations defenses; court held RICO standards differ from common-law proximate cause, saved claims under accidental failure of suit; affirmed overall judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost profits evidence was admissible | Lost profits were recoverable if causation shown | Damages speculative; no certain contract | Preclusion proper; lost profits not proven with reasonable certainty |
| Whether overhead damages were admissible | Overhead costs are recoverable in tort/contract | Overhead not established; discovery flaws | Overhead evidence properly precluded |
| Whether evidence of prior misconduct on Kasper’s part was admissible | Evidence relevant to conspiratorial knowledge | Evidence outside pleadings; limited by 4-5; not integral to claim | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded as not an integral part of the plan to interfere with contract |
| Whether punitive damages were properly calculated under CUTPA against Lenoci and Ganim | Should be high punitive damages given wealth and conduct | Should be limited; ratio constrained by due process | Six times actual damages awarded; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether plaintiff's state claims were barred by collateral estoppel or statute of limitations | Claims not barred; 52-592 saves claims | Collateral estoppel and limitations apply | Collateral estoppel did not bar state claims; 52-592 savings applied; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48 (Conn. 1998) (damages for lost profits must be proven with reasonable certainty)
- Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 366 (N.Y. 1992) (lost profits from a prospective land development contract may be speculative)
- State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2007) (common plan/scheme exceptions to 4-5(b) admissibility limited; narrow standard)
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (S. Ct. 1992) (RICO proximate cause requires more than but-for; proximate cause limits standing)
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (RICO proximate cause doctrine differs from common-law proximate cause; standing issues distinct)
- Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 79 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 1996) (statutory/causation interplay in proximate cause analysis)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (S. Ct. 2008) (guidance on punitive damages, deterrence, and due process considerations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (S. Ct. 2003) (three guideposts for evaluating punitive damages under due process)