168 Conn. App. 768
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Salem Bridge collapsed during demolition; Anthony Mariano (Brunalli employee) was injured. Brunalli (general contractor) paid workers’ compensation and intervened seeking reimbursement. Close, an apportionment defendant/consulting engineer, filed a counterclaim against Brunalli seeking contractual indemnification.
- Close alleged it had a 2008 consulting agreement with the State making Close the State’s agent and that Brunalli’s prime contract (incorporating DOT standard specifications) required Brunalli to indemnify the State’s agents; Close claimed third‑party beneficiary status.
- Brunalli moved for summary judgment on Close’s counterclaim arguing no independent legal duty existed and that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity bar applied; Brunalli submitted an affidavit that Brunalli and Close had no contract between them.
- Close amended its counterclaim (and the amendment became operative) alleging agency and third‑party beneficiary status; Close opposed summary judgment with an affidavit from its director (Ryan) stating Close was understood to be the State’s agent but did not attach the consulting agreement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Brunalli, finding Close’s affidavit conclusory and noting Close had not submitted the consulting agreement; Close appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Close's Argument | Brunalli's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brunalli met its initial burden on summary judgment to negate Close’s claim that Close was the State’s agent and a third‑party beneficiary of the prime contract (thus creating an independent duty to indemnify) | Close: Ryan affidavit and amended counterclaim create factual dispute that Close was the State’s agent and thus entitled to indemnity under the prime contract | Brunalli: No contract between Brunalli and Close; no independent legal duty to indemnify; exclusivity of Workers’ Compensation Act bars Close’s counterclaim | Reversed trial court. Brunalli failed to negate Close’s agency/third‑party‑beneficiary allegation; genuine issue of material fact remained, so summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferryman v. Groton, 212 Conn. 138 (1989) (explains that indemnity against an employer requires an independent legal duty arising from a separate contractual relation or implied promise)
- Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694 (1997) (discusses independent legal relationship requirement given workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Lathrop v. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 131 Conn. App. 204 (2011) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Mott v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP, 139 Conn. App. 618 (2012) (moving party must negate factual claims as framed by the complaint before burden shifts)
- Wesley v. Schaller Subaru, Inc., 277 Conn. 526 (2006) (existence of agency is a question of fact)
- Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442 (1984) (movant must show nonexistence of material factual issues)
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430 (1980) (articulates strict showing required of movant on summary judgment)