Gianetti v. NORWALK HOSP., 304 Conn. 754

Gianetti sued Norwalk Hospital for breach of contract after his medical staff privileges were not renewed in 1983, leading to a long procedural history and multiple remands regarding damages.
The trial court initially awarded nominal damages, found Gianetti not a lost volume seller, and later proceedings on remand determined he was a lost volume seller with damages for 1984–1988.
Appellate courts held the lost volume seller theory could apply to personal service contracts and remanded for a damages calculation with guidance on how to compute lost profits.
On remand (2009 memorandum and 2009 articulation), the trial court held Gianetti was a lost volume seller and awarded damages of $258,610 for 1984–1988 plus costs, denying damages after 1988 due to substantial variable effects.
The hospital appealing argued three main points about lost volume status and damages; Gianetti cross-appealed on calculation, interest, and attorney’s fees, all of which the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed in part.
Procedural posture included multiple certifications and appeals culminating in this final affirmance of damages for 1984–1988 and rejection of broader post-1988 damages and related claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gianetti was properly found to be a lost volume seller.	Gianetti contends he could perform at multiple hospitals simultaneously and that profitability prong was met.	Norwalk Hospital asserts lack of capacity and profitability to support lost volume status.	Yes; Gianetti properly found as lost volume seller.
Whether damages for 1984–1988 were proven with reasonable certainty.	Gianetti argues sufficient evidence supports lost profits for those years.	Hospital claims calculations were speculative and uncertain beyond 1988.	Sufficient evidence supported damages for 1984–1988.
Whether the court properly limited evidence on the parties’ expectations for contract duration.	Evidence of intent longer than 1988 should have been considered.	Evidence was irrelevant to objective intent at contract inception.	Trial court acted within its discretion in excluding that evidence.
Whether prejudgment and postjudgment interest were properly denied.	Interest should accrue given breach and timing of liability determination.	Interest award rests on eventual lost volume finding and timing.
Denied; court did not abuse discretion.
Whether attorney’s fees were warranted based on bad faith or fiduciary theories.	Hospital’s prolonging litigation warranted fees; fiduciary duty argued.	No bad faith or fiduciary duty basis supported fee award.	Affirmed denial of attorney’s fees.

Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 211 Conn. 51 (1989) (established contractual relationship via medical staff bylaws; bylaw mechanics not a contract per se)
Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 266 Conn. 544 (2003) (retired to remand on lost volume seller issues; severity of evidentiary requirements discussed)
Gianetti II, 266 Conn. 544, 833 A.2d 891 (2003) (remand for damages; lost volume status and duration of relationship; profitability test)
Gavin v. Schatz & Schatz, 247 Conn. 48 (1998) (lost profits must be proven with reasonable certainty)
Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1 (1995) (prejudgment interest and equitable considerations in damages)
Owens v. New Britain General Hospital, 229 Conn. 592 (1994) (fiduciary duty and bylaws compliance in hospital physician terminations)
Kutner Buick, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., 868 F.2d 614 (1989) (expense allocation for lost profits; fixed vs. variable costs)
Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315 (2010) (bad faith context; punitive damages not at issue here)