Dinardo Seaside Tower, Ltd. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
153 Conn.App. 10
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff leased industrial property to defendant in Bridgeport starting 1987; December 2000 completion agreement covered Jan 2001–Nov 2002; Third Amendment (Mar 1, 2002) extended lease to 2007 with defendant-improvement provisions becoming property of plaintiff at end term; 2004 Army canceled helicopter program but lease remained through 2007; 2007 inspection revealed deteriorated exterior and missing infrastructure while defendant had installed a DX system; 2009 plaintiff sued for breach of lease and CUTPA, alleging intentional destruction and failure to maintain property leading to damages; trial court granted directed verdict on CUTPA, and jury returned verdict for defendant on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTPA applies when activity is incidental to the defendant’s primary trade | Plaintiff argues CUTPA can apply to leasing despite being incidental to defendant’s main business | Defendant contends leasing is incidental; primary business is aircraft design/production | CUTPA not applicable where conduct is incidental to primary trade |
| Whether court correctly directed verdict on CUTPA based on primary trade doctrine | Plaintiff asserts sufficient evidence of leasing as a trade to sustain CUTPA | Court properly applied primary-trade rule, evidence insufficient to show trading/commerce in leasing | Directed verdict upheld; leasing not defendant’s primary trade/commerce for CUTPA purposes |
| Whether the court acted properly in raising the primary-business issue sua sponte | Plaintiff contends sua sponte ruling violated fair-trial procedure | Court properly sought authorities; both sides had opportunity to respond | Court’s sua sponte focus on primary business not reversible; claim waived due to lack of objection |
Key Cases Cited
- McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486 (Conn. App. 2006) (CUTPA may not be alleged for activities incidental to primary trade or commerce)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 116 Conn. App. 483 (Conn. App. 2009) (CUTPA inapplicable to ancillary transactions incidental to primary real estate business)
- Biro v. Matz, 132 Conn. App. 272 (Conn. App. 2011) (Sellers not in primary real property business; CUTPA inapplicable)
- Harbour Pointe, LLC v. Harbour Landing Condominium Assn., Inc., 300 Conn. 254 (Conn. 2011) (Ambiguity and contract interpretation standards; contra proferentem considerations)
- McDermott v. Calvary Baptist Church, 263 Conn. 378 (Conn. 2003) (Standard for reviewing jury instructions and evidentiary rulings)