KDM Services, LLC v. DRVN Enterprises, Inc.
211 Conn.App. 135
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 2014 KDM Services (plaintiff) and DRVN Enterprises (defendant) executed a written contract for supplying/mixing deicing liquid at 200 State Pier Rd; payment was due within 15 days.
- Plaintiff sued (Feb. 11, 2019) alleging it performed services on Jan. 3, 7, 9 and 15–16, 2018 and sought $132,459.25 under the written contract; defendant pleaded that the contract had been satisfied earlier and that a different vendor performed/was paid in Jan. 2018.
- At bench trial plaintiff’s owner testified the 2014 contract was a starting “guideline,” the parties continued dealing through 2015–2017, and plaintiff performed in Jan. 2018 but was not paid; plaintiff acknowledged not seeking the original $132k amount at trial.
- The trial court found an implied contract by course of dealing (plaintiff billed costs plus a $0.33/gal commission; defendant paid) and awarded plaintiff $24,978.03 (the commission), then granted leave to file an amended complaint to conform to the evidence (breach of implied contract).
- Plaintiff filed the amended complaint asserting breach of an implied contract based on course of dealing; defendant appealed, arguing the post‑trial amendment prejudiced its ability to defend and was an abuse of discretion.
- The Appellate Court reversed: it held the post‑trial amendment presented a new factual situation and cause of action (implied contract/commission) distinct from the original written‑contract claim, and the defendant was prejudiced; judgment was directed for the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly allowed post‑trial amendment to conform pleadings to evidence | Both complaints sought payment for services in Jan. 2018, so amendment caused no surprise or prejudice | Amended complaint asserts a different legal theory (implied contract) and different relief (commission); defendant lacked chance to amend defenses, obtain discovery, or call witnesses | Abuse of discretion to allow post‑trial amendment; reverse and render for defendant |
| Whether the variance between the original complaint (express contract) and the proof (implied contract by course of dealing) was permissible | Evidence at trial supported ongoing course of dealing and expectation of payment, so variance was harmless | Variance presented an entirely new factual situation and cause of action, which can mislead/prejudice defendant | Variance was substantial; amendment improperly changed the identity of the cause of action and prejudiced defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 76 A.3d 636 (Conn. App. 2013) (factors and standard for allowing amendments to pleadings and to conform pleadings to proof)
- Billy & Leo, LLC v. Michaelidis, 867 A.2d 119 (Conn. App. 2005) (amplification allowed only if identity of cause remains; new factual situation states new cause of action)
- Antonofsky v. Goldberg, 136 A.2d 338 (Conn. 1957) (pleading provides measure of recovery; cannot recover on materially different facts than alleged)
- AirKaman, Inc. v. Groppo, 607 A.2d 410 (Conn. 1992) (denial of amendment appropriate where opposing party would be prejudiced and additional discovery required)
- Beckman v. Jalich Homes, Inc., 460 A.2d 488 (Conn. 1983) (trial court may deny last‑minute amendments that add new bases of liability)
- Featherston v. Katchko & Son Constr. Servs., Inc., 244 A.3d 621 (Conn. App. 2020) (post‑judgment amendments should be allowed sparingly; special circumstances required)