Mattie & O'Brien Contracting Co. v. Rizzo Construction Pool Co.
128 Conn. App. 537
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Mattie & O'Brien contracted with the Navy to perform repairs at Groton submarine base; Rizzo Pool subcontracted for pool work.
- Rizzo subcontracted RenoSys to repair the pool lining; disputes arose over performance quality.
- A 2004 settlement between Mattie & O'Brien and Rizzo included mutual releases, an indemnification agreement, and preserved Rizzo's warranty.
- Plaintiff paid RenoSys to honor its warranty after RenoSys refused to repair the lining unless paid; RenoSys later repaired it.
- In 2006, Mattie & O'Brien sued Rizzo to recover RenoSys payments; Rizzo answered denying debt and asserting lack of knowledge of warranties.
- At the attorney fact finder hearing, arbitration clause in the 2002 contract was raised; the court later denied a stay and deemed waiver occurred due to inaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of arbitration clause due to inaction | Mattie & O'Brien argues no waiver occurred by defendant's conduct. | Rizzo contends no waiver; arbitration should proceed per clause. | Waiver found; stay denied. |
| Whether the motion to amend pleadings should be reviewed | Mattie & O'Brien contends amendment properly conformed to proof. | Rizzo asserts error in denial to conform pleadings to proof. | Not reviewed due to inadequate briefing. |
| Evidentiary rulings by the fact finder | Mattie & O'Brien claims evidence exclusion was improper. | Rizzo asserts improper exclusion of relevant evidence. | Not reviewed due to inadequate briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., 223 Conn. 761 (Conn. 1992) (arbitration clause enforcement favored to avoid delay)
- Waterbury Teachers' Assn. v. Waterbury, 164 Conn. 426 (Conn. 1973) (arbitration clause enforcement considerations)
- Hanover Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 217 Conn. 340 (Conn. 1991) (waiver and estoppel are questions of fact)
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 704 v. Dept. of Public Health, 272 Conn. 617 (Conn. 2005) (practice and standard for review of factual determinations)
- Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn.App. 47 (Conn. App. 2009) (oral amendments via order; fact finder not a judicial authority)
- Northeast Ct. Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC Partnership, 272 Conn. 14 (Conn. 2004) (adequacy of briefing and evidentiary challenges)