176 Conn. App. 272
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Luongo Construction & Development, LLC (Luongo LLC) contracted to deliver and install a modular home for James MacFarlane for $247,915; disputes arose over alleged defective installation and unpaid balance.
- MacFarlane sued (New Haven action) and later filed a separate action and counterclaim in Middlesex/Middletown against Luongo LLC and Michael Luongo alleging breach of contract, violations of the New Home Construction Contractors Act, express and implied warranties, CUTPA, and negligent/unworkmanlike construction.
- Trial evidence, including expert testimony, found major installation defects (improperly set and unbolted steel beams, sagging/rotation, cracks, misplaced cellar stairs) and that Luongo LLC failed to follow manufacturer instructions and statutory registration requirements (§ 20-417d).
- Trial court awarded MacFarlane actual damages (~$90,179.43 after offsets), consequential damages, expert fees, attorney’s fees to be determined, and $150,000 punitive damages under CUTPA; Luongo parties appealed.
- Appeals raised: (1) denial of motions to dismiss based on the prior pending action doctrine; (2) denial of summary judgment (including waiver and estoppel defenses); (3) the punitive damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior pending action doctrine — dismissal of counterclaim | MacFarlane: New Haven action filed first; Middlesex case should be dismissed as duplicative | Luongo: Middlesex action proper; parties/claims differed and citation of Luongo into New Haven was later denied | Court: Denials of dismissal were proper — actions not identical at key times; later motion after New Haven withdrawal was untimely and doctrine not implicated once the prior action was withdrawn |
| Summary judgment (entire counterclaim) | Luongo: No genuine issue of material fact; prior New Haven ruling supports dismissal; entitled to judgment | MacFarlane: Genuine factual disputes about work quality and conduct; summary judgment improper | Court: Denied summary judgment correctly — genuine issues existed; and denial after full trial need not be reviewed separately |
| Waiver and equitable estoppel defenses | Luongo: Final payment/check and punch-list letter evidenced satisfaction and waiver of further claims; estoppel bars suit | MacFarlane: He lacked knowledge of latent, structural defects when payment made; did not waive rights or alter position | Court: Rejected waiver/estoppel — factual disputes existed and trial evidence showed no effective waiver or estoppel |
| Punitive damages under CUTPA | Luongo: Conduct was at worst negligent; punitive damages not justified | MacFarlane: Luongo recklessly disregarded manufacturer instructions and statutory obligations, justifying punitive damages for deterrence | Held: Award affirmed — court reasonably found reckless indifference (failure to follow simple manufacturer instructions, shockingly poor installation, §20-417d violation) and did not abuse discretion in awarding punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2013) (standards for punitive damages under CUTPA; recklessness requirement)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Cookson Group, PLC, 149 Conn.App. 571 (Conn. App. 2014) (prior pending action doctrine framework)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (Conn. 2009) (analysis of when prior pending action doctrine applies)
- 710 Long Ridge Operating Co. II, LLC v. Stebbins, 153 Conn.App. 288 (Conn. App. 2014) (prior pending action doctrine not implicated once prior action withdrawn)
- Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 131 Conn.App. 99 (Conn. App. 2011) (punitive damages under CUTPA often multiples of actual damages; deterrence focus)
- Tessmann v. Tiger Lee Construction Co., 228 Conn. 42 (Conn. 1993) (examples of conduct supporting punitive damages under CUTPA)
- Votto v. American Car Rental, Inc., 273 Conn. 478 (Conn. 2005) (trial court discretion to award punitive damages under CUTPA)