159 Conn.App. 12
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Contract for an in-ground pool; location violated town setback; plaintiffs allegedly directed siting via plot plan; defendant built per alleged location sketch; town required plot plan compliance; plaintiffs later settled with town and sued for damages; jury awarded $62,142.86 to plaintiffs for breach of contract and negligence.
- Plaintiffs' agent Castelli prepared tissue sketch; Tomas (plaintiffs' seller/agent) submitted plot plan to town; town approved plan; defendant filed permit referencing town approval; pool located closer to adjacent property line than allowed.
- The central dispute: whether the contract’s exculpatory/indemnity language shields defendant from liability for pool location; whether plaintiff evidence supported negligence and contract claims without expert testimony; and how the law-of-the-case and parol-evidence issues should be handled.
- Trial court: ambiguous first sentence of exculpatory clause; held harmless/indemnity language not applicable to dispute between parties; refused defendant’s requested charge; denied directed verdict on contract and negligence claims; allowed parol evidence to show plaintiffs’ performance of contract; did not require expert standard-of-care testimony.
- Appellate court: affirmed judgment; held the court correctly instructed on ambiguity, law-of-the-case doctrine, and parol-evidence ruling; found the standard of care question did not require expert testimony given plot-plan/ town-approved scheme; rejected mistrial claim tied to jury interrogatories and damages.
- The decision upholds the jury verdict against Signature Pools, Inc. for breach of contract and negligence and approves the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, law-of-the-case considerations, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exculpatory clause language was properly interpreted | Mazier seeks to enforce contract terms; language ambiguous | Signature argues unambiguous release of liability | court found ambiguity; instruction proper |
| Law of the case regarding contract language | Judge Tobin’s prejudgment remedy ruling set law of the case | Law of the case restricted later evidence | court acted within discretion; no error in applying law of the case |
| Parol evidence relating to pool location | Evidence shows plaintiffs fulfilled contract; not to vary writing | Parol evidence should be barred by integration rule | parol evidence admissible to show fulfillment of contract and how location was determined |
| Directed verdict on standard of care | No expert needed; plot-plan compliance shows duty | Need expert standard of care for pool builders | no directed verdict; jury could assess duty from plot plan and ordinary care |
| Mistrial due to jury instruction handling | No prejudicial error | Instruction error | no abuse of discretion; no mistrial required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCarthy, 105 Conn. App. 596 (Conn. App. 2008) (accurate statements of law when fair to use substance of requested charge)
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Liberty Auto & Electric Co., 262 Conn. 142 (Conn. 2002) (indemnity actions arise when insured seeks reimbursement from tortfeasor)
- Greene v. Scott, 3 Conn. App. 34 (Conn. App. 1984) (parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of contract performance)
- Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 (Conn. 1982) (law-of-the-case doctrine; discretionary, not mandatory)
- Szczycinska v. Acampora, 125 Conn. App. 474 (Conn. App. 2010) (jury may be sent back for further consideration under §52-223; judge supervises verdict)