175 Conn. App. 519
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Cohen contracted with Robert M. Meyers, Inc. (RMMI) to build a house; Meyers was RMMI’s president and sole shareholder and controlled the company’s operations.
- RMMI’s New Home Construction Contractor (NHCC) registration lapsed before negotiations but was renewed shortly before the written agreement and deposit ($50,000) in August 2010; RMMI did not give statutorily required NHCCA disclosures before contracting.
- Disputes arose over foundation orientation, driveway/permit requirements, and delays; Cohen terminated the contract in December 2010 after permit issues and disagreements.
- Cohen then launched an extensive campaign of complaints, FOIA requests, letters, public speeches, newspaper contacts, and a website accusing Meyers of theft, criminality, causing a customer’s death, marital infidelity, and contracting venereal disease.
- Trial court: found RMMI violated the NHCCA and thus CUTPA and awarded Cohen $54,750 in actual damages; declined to pierce RMMI’s corporate veil to hold Meyers personally liable; found for Meyers on his defamation counterclaim and awarded $100,000; denied punitive damages to either party; rejected Meyers’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Issues
| Issue | Cohen's Argument | Meyers/RMMI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piercing corporate veil / personal liability for CUTPA and fraud | Meyers exercised complete control of RMMI and RMMI’s CUTPA violation shows he used the corporation to violate statutory duties, so veil should be pierced | Sole control alone insufficient; plaintiff failed to prove Meyers used control to perpetrate fraud or injustice | Denied — court found insufficient evidence under the instrumentality test (no willful/malicious/deceitful use of corporate form) |
| Defamation (whether statements actionable and privileged) | Statements were true or substantially true and/or protected as privileged speech on matters of public concern | Statements were defamatory per se, were not substantially true, and were made with actual malice defeating any privilege | For Meyers — trial court found statements defamatory per se, Cohen failed to prove substantial truth, and actual malice was proven, so conditional privileges and First Amendment protection lost |
| Damages for CUTPA claim (ascertainable loss) | Cohen failed to show compensable injury caused by RMMI’s failure to make NHCCA disclosures; any loss caused by permit/driveway issues or his own actions | Cohen would not have contracted or paid RMMI had he received disclosures; out‑of‑pocket $54,750 was an ascertainable loss | For Cohen — court credited his testimony and awarded $54,750 as actual damages under CUTPA |
| Punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | (Meyers) Cohen’s campaign was extreme, outrageous, malicious warranting punitive damages and IIED recovery | Court should exercise discretion to deny punitive damages; conduct, though harassing and defamatory, did not reach extreme/outrageous threshold for IIED | Punitive damages: denied (no abuse of discretion found). IIED: denied — conduct did not meet extreme and outrageous standard as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133 (instrumentality and veil‑piercing standards)
- Angelo Tomasso, Inc. v. Armor Construction & Paving, Inc., 187 Conn. 544 (corporate veil pierced only in exceptional circumstances)
- Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp., 295 Conn. 214 (tests for disregarding corporate entity)
- Gleason v. Smolinski, 319 Conn. 394 (defamation elements and actual malice discussion)
- Moriarty v. Lippe, 162 Conn. 371 (defamation per se categories)
- Proto v. Bridgeport Herald Corp., 136 Conn. 557 (libel per se principles)
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican‑American, 188 Conn. 107 (substantial truth doctrine)
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 291 Conn. 620 (qualified privilege and review standards)
- Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 97 Conn. App. 527 (actual malice standard explained)
- Bhatia v. Debek, 287 Conn. 397 (trial court discretion on punitive damages)
- DeVito v. Schwartz, 66 Conn. App. 228 (punitive damages not automatic; discretionary)
- D'Angelo Development & Construction Corp. v. Cordovano, 121 Conn. App. 165 (ascertainable loss under CUTPA)