Plato Associates, LLC v. Environmental Compliance Services, Inc.
298 Conn. 852
| Conn. | 2010Background
- In 2000, Plato sought bank financing for property at 4 Pin Oak Drive and hired ECS for an environmental assessment.
- ECS reported on January 18, 2001 that the property was not an establishment under the Transfer Act, enabling purchase and improvements.
- Plaintiff purchased the property and began improvements; the loan funded construction, with further advances as work progressed.
- In April 2007, the defendants disclosed records showing thousands of gallons of hazardous waste and that the property was in fact an establishment.
- Plaintiff filed suit on August 31, 2007, asserting breach of contract and negligence in the 2000 assessment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding § 52-584a(a) did not apply and the action was time barred under other limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 52-584a(a) apply to plaintiff's claims? | Plato contends seven-year limit applies to all claims. | ECS argues not applicable as no real-property improvement. | Genuine issue; statute applies and not bar by other limits. |
| Did the defendants perform professional engineering services within § 52-584a(a)? | Hopkins' role and report show professional services; material facts exist. | Affidavits show no professional engineering services were provided. | Genuine issue of material fact remains as to professional engineering services. |
| Were the defendants' activities performed in connection with an improvement to real property? | Assessment and wells were part of improving the property and financing. | Activities were for loan purposes, not an improvement. | Genuine issue; activities may constitute an improvement. |
| Did the monitoring wells constitute an improvement to real property to start § 52-584a(a) period? | Wells increased value/utility and were integral to financing. | Wells were temporary and not value-enhancing. | Genuine issue; wells could constitute an improvement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293 (1998) (addresses whether § 52-584a applies when improvement not completed)
- Verna v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 261 Conn. 102 (2002) (definition context for improvement to real property)
- Metropolitan District v. Barkhamsted, 199 Conn. 294 (1986) (improvement meaning and property development)
- Northeast Ct. Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC Partnership, 272 Conn. 14 (2004) (statutory context for environmental transfer act and site assessment)
- Rodriguez v. Testa, 296 Conn. 1 (2010) (plenary review standard and statutory construction guidance)