163 Conn.App. 440
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Paul and Lisa Ippolito contracted with Olympic Construction to repair storm water damage; the contract used AIA A133–2009 and incorporated A201–2007 General Conditions.
- During repairs a subsequent storm prompted Paul Ippolito to terminate the contract before completion.
- Olympic initiated arbitration seeking lost profits for work it could not complete due to the termination; the arbitrator awarded $46,448.19 to Olympic, finding the termination was without cause.
- Plaintiffs sought to vacate the award in Superior Court, arguing the home improvement contract violated the Home Improvement Act (HIA) because (1) the cancellation notice was improperly located (HIA §20-429(a)(6) / HSSA §42-135a) and (2) the contract lacked fixed start and completion dates (HIA §20-429(a)(7)); the trial court confirmed the award.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued the arbitration award violated clear public policy and manifested disregard of law; the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court, upholding the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cancellation notice placement (HIA §20-429(a)(6) / HSSA §42-135a) | Cancellation notice was "buried" in incorporated A201 pages 38–39 and not in immediate proximity to signature as HSSA requires, rendering contract unenforceable | Notice was included by incorporation and referenced near signature; any deviation was minor/technical and did not deprive plaintiffs of notice | Award did not violate public policy; incorporated notice gave substance of required notice and deviation was minor so enforcement is permissible |
| Start and completion dates (HIA §20-429(a)(7)) | Contract lacked fixed calendar start/completion dates, so it is unenforceable | Contract defines commencement and completion by contract provisions (e.g., notice to proceed, GMP acceptance) — dates can be readily deduced | Arbitrator found start/completion dates ascertainable from contract; court bound by that factual finding and held statute was satisfied |
| Public-policy vacatur of arbitration award | Enforcing a noncompliant HIA contract violates explicit, dominant public policy and requires vacatur | HIA compliance need not be technically perfect; minor defects that do not deprive owners of notice do not implicate dominant public policy | No well-defined dominant public policy was violated because deviations were minor and did not deprive plaintiffs of cancellation notice or required dates |
| Manifest disregard of law under §52-418(a)(4) | Arbitrator recognized statutory requirements but ignored them when enforcing the contract | Arbitrator made factual findings that deviations were minor or nonexistent; did not ignore clearly governing law | Plaintiffs failed Garrity test: no obvious error, no showing arbitrator knowingly ignored clearly applicable law; award not vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Economos v. Liljedahl Bros., Inc., 279 Conn. 300 (arbitral review limited; grounds for vacatur narrowly confined)
- Burr Road Operating Co. II, LLC v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 316 Conn. 618 (two‑pronged test for public‑policy vacatur of arbitration awards)
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dept. of Correction, 298 Conn. 824 (deference to arbitrator's factual findings when reviewing public‑policy challenge)
- Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, 247 Conn. 218 (HIA is remedial; requires compliance but not necessarily technically perfect adherence to every formality)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (adopts Second Circuit three‑part test for manifest disregard of law under §52‑418(a)(4))