McCarthy v. Chromium Process Co.
127 Conn. App. 324
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- In 2007 the commissioner filed a revised amended complaint against Chromium Process for multiple permit violations.
- On Aug 25, 2008 the parties filed a stipulation for judgment; the court entered judgment with injunctive relief and stipulated penalties.
- In Dec 2008 the commissioner moved to schedule a hearing to assess stipulated penalties; the court held hearings in 2009.
- On July 15, 2009 the court found six violations and assessed $25,000 per violation (total $150,000) and ordered surrender of permits.
- In Dec 2010 the court, with consent, withdrew the Sept 18, 2008 chronic toxicity claim, reducing penalties to $100,000 while noting five violations, and the court’s decision was appealed and affirmed.
- The appellate court addressed whether the penalties were properly tied to bond exhaustion and declined to review the audita querela issue due to record adequacy concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether penalties are limited to $25,000 per day before bond exhaustion | McCarthy argues penalties fall under HID for daily penalties | Chromium Process argues ambiguity and pre-bond limits | Yes; penalties fixed at $25,000 per day before bond exhaustion |
| Whether Paragraphs IIID and V16 conflict on when penalties apply | McCarthy asserts post-bond penalties after exhaustion | Chromium Process contends only post-exhaustion penalties apply | No conflict; pre-exhaustion penalties apply under IIID; post-exhaustion penalties under V16 |
| Whether court should have addressed audita querela applicability | N/A | N/A | Claim not reviewed due to lack of articulation record |
| Whether withdrawal of Sept 18, 2008 violation moots penalties | That specific violation could reduce penalties | N/A | Withdrawal reduced total but five violations remained; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker-stein v. Stew Leonard’s Dairy, 258 Conn. 299 (Conn. 2001) (contractual interpretation of stipulated judgments; binding contract-like effect)
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 97 Conn. App. 541 (Conn. App. 2006) (contract interpretation; give effect to all language)
- Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 698 (Conn. 2009) (ambiguous vs. unambiguous contract language; intent from language)
- Barnard v. Barnard, 214 Conn. 99 (Conn. 1990) (read contract as a whole; avoid superfluous terms)
- Crews v. Crews, 107 Conn. App. 279 (Conn. App. 2008) (contract interpretation; language controls when clear)
- State v. Cotto, 111 Conn. App. 818 (Conn. App. 2008) (audita querela discussion in context of post-judgment review)