234 Conn.App. 581
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Plaintiff Robert P. Matusz, landlord, owned a building in Naugatuck and leased its first floor to Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc. (defendant), a commercial tenant.
- In June 2019, a fire caused extensive damage to the building; both the fire marshal and plaintiff’s insurance concluded the fire was caused by faulty ceiling wiring, not the tenant’s equipment (a photocopier).
- Matusz brought claims against Wellmore for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence; summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant on all but the negligence count.
- At trial, the court granted defendant’s motion in limine, precluding evidence/testimony on noneconomic damages (e.g., emotional distress), finding such damages unavailable for property damage cases in Connecticut.
- The jury found for the defendant on liability; no damages (economic or noneconomic) were awarded.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not giving his proposed jury instruction on landlord obligations, and (2) the court wrongly excluded noneconomic damages evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on specific landlord obligations | Court’s instructions were inadequate and may have misled jury. | Instructions were adequate; proposed charge not relevant or adequately briefed. | Claim was inadequately briefed, not reviewed. |
| Whether the court erred by granting motion in limine to preclude noneconomic damages evidence | Noneconomic damages (emotional distress, etc.) should be recoverable for property damage. | Such damages unavailable in property damage-only cases per CT law; any error was harmless. | Even if error, plaintiff suffered no harm, as jury found no liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Soracco, 174 Conn. 165 (error on damages harmless if jury found no liability)
- Sears v. Curtis, 147 Conn. 311 (damages errors immaterial when verdict for defendant)
- Attardo v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 144 Conn. 741 (same principle)
- George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312 (plaintiff must show harmful error in evidentiary rulings)
- Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates, 232 Conn. App. 143 (test for reviewing instructional error)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726 (inadequately briefed claims not addressed)
- Kosiorek v. Smigelski, 138 Conn. App. 695 (analysis, not just assertion, required for appellate review)