162 Conn.App. 186
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- This case concerns Heritage Homes Construction Co., LLC and Reed Whipple building a Ridgefield home for Lisa Bruno and Bruno; Bruno sues for breach of contract, implied covenant breach, and CUTPA.
- Plaintiff Bruno and Bruno (her ex-husband) financed the project; after divorce proceedings, defendants allegedly limited Bruno’s access to project information and billing.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Whipple on several claims and later to Heritage Homes on two claims; waiver became a contested special defense after trial.
- At trial, Heritage Homes sought to use waiver as a belated special defense; the court permitted an instruction on waiver and to answer jury interrogatories on waiver.
- The jury found Whipple safe against CUTPA and Heritage Homes liable on breach of contract but with waiver; upon posttrial motions, Bruno challenged the waiver ruling and the CUTPA verdicts.
- On appeal, the appellate court reversed as to the waiver issue, remanded for damages on the breach of contract verdict, and affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver was properly raised as a defense | Bruno contends waiver was not pleaded and not fully litigated | Heritage Homes argues waiver was litigated; Stratford precedent applies | Waiver improperly raised; trial court abused discretion |
| Whether remand should be for damages only or retrial on breach | Only damages should be remanded due to separable error | Full retrial advisable if necessary | Remand for hearing on damages limited to breach verdict |
| Whether CUTPA liability against Whipple was properly denied | Whipple’s concealment theory supported CUTPA and ascertainable loss | No cognizable CUTPA claim against Whipple given lack of contractual relationship | Court did not disturb the CUTPA verdict against Whipple; no reversal |
| Whether summary judgment on implied covenant and CUTPA against Heritage Homes was proper | Allegations of a scheme to launder money show bad faith | Allegations were conclusory and unsupported by facts | Summary judgment affirmed for Heritage Homes on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Stratford v. A. Secondino & Son, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 737 (Conn. App. 2012) (unpleaded waiver may be raised if fully litigated without objection)
- Beeman v. Stratford, 157 Conn. App. 528 (Conn. App. 2015) (standard for setting aside a verdict; broad discretion review)
- McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 146 (Conn. App. 2010) (pleadings and special defenses; notice requirements)
- Lukas v. McCoy, 157 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2015) (jury verdict presumption; final judgment rules)
- Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital Assn., 316 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2015) (summary judgment burden and proof standards)
- Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. CALCO Construction & Development Co., 318 Conn. 847 (Conn. 2015) (CUTPA standard and damages framework)
- Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357 (Conn. 2015) (limits on appellate review of jury findings)
- Almada v. Wausau Business Ins. Co., 274 Conn. 449 (Conn. 2005) (special defenses and pleading requirements)
- Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 158 (Conn. App. 2002) (special defense proof requirements)
- Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. v. Property Operating Co., LLC, 91 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2005) (due process concerns in trial amendments)