173 Conn. App. 630
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Owners (Girolametti) contracted with general contractor Rizzo to build a Party Depot expansion that ultimately used a pre-engineered building (PEB); several subcontractors and sub-subcontractors (Horton, Munger, Lindade, Quaraglia, Test-Con, BlueScope/Oakeson, VP) participated.
- Disputes over alleged defective steel joists and second-floor load capacity arose; Rizzo initiated arbitration against Girolametti and the parties arbitrated claims between them (Dec 2009–Dec 2010). Girolametti ceased participating before the arbitration concluded.
- The arbitrator awarded Rizzo $508,597 and denied Girolametti damages for structural issues, noting Girolametti failed to present evidence; the award was confirmed by the trial court and on appeal.
- After arbitration, Girolametti sued various subcontractors/sub‑subcontractors alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and CUTPA claims tied to the same construction defects central to the arbitration.
- Each defendant moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata and/or collateral estoppel (some also raised statute of limitations). The trial court granted summary judgment for Rizzo but denied the other defendants’ motions mainly for lack of privity. Multiple appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Girolametti's claims against Rizzo are barred by res judicata after arbitration | Res judicata does not bar defective-joists claim because it was not actually litigated; alleged fraudulent procurement of the award prevents preclusion | Rizzo: arbitration fully or sufficiently presented the claims; res judicata bars reassertion | Affirmed: res judicata bars Girolametti’s claims against Rizzo; fraud claim had to be raised timely under arbitration-vacatur statutes |
| Whether subcontractors (Horton, Lindade, Quaraglia, Munger, BlueScope/Oakeson) may invoke collateral estoppel or res judicata though not parties to arbitration | Claims not precluded because subcontractors lacked privity and issues were not necessarily litigated to bar relitigation | Defendants: res judicata (or defensive collateral estoppel) bars claims; privity or shared legal interests tied them to Rizzo; plaintiff had full and fair opportunity in arbitration | Reversed for Horton, Lindade, Quaraglia, Munger, BlueScope/Oakeson: res judicata applies; summary judgment should have been rendered for those defendants (collateral estoppel not adopted where arbitrator’s adverse result stemmed from plaintiff default) |
| Whether privity is required for defensive collateral estoppel by a party not in the prior proceeding | Plaintiff: lack of privity defeats preclusion | Defendants: defensive collateral estoppel does not require privity when issue was fully and necessarily decided against plaintiff | Court: privity not required for defensive collateral estoppel, but here collateral estoppel often failed because arbitrator’s decision rested on plaintiff’s default; res judicata applied where transactional test and privity present |
| Whether Test-Con (directly hired by plaintiff) is precluded by arbitration | Plaintiff: Test-Con cannot benefit from arbitration because Test-Con contracted directly with plaintiff and was not in Rizzo’s contractual chain | Test-Con: defensive collateral estoppel may apply even without privity if issue was necessarily decided in arbitration | Reversed in part and remanded: trial court erred to decide on privity only; further factfinding required to determine whether issues involving Test-Con were actually and necessarily decided in arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304 (standard for summary judgment)
- Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183 (arbitration awards get res judicata effect)
- Wu v. Chang, 264 Conn. 307 (motion to vacate arbitration award must be timely; fraud claim subject to statutory deadline)
- Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, 320 Conn. 146 (treatment of denial of summary judgment based on res judicata as appealable final decision)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (abandonment of strict mutuality requirement for collateral estoppel)
- Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (analysis of privity for collateral estoppel)
- Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 301 Conn. 194 (privity hinges on sharing the same legal rights)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24 (distinguishing collateral estoppel and res judicata)