196 Conn.App. 430
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Professional Electrical Contractors (second‑tier subcontractor) supplied materials/services starting October 3, 2015, and claimed $38,509.07 unpaid.
- Semac was the first‑tier electrical subcontractor to Skanska (general contractor); Semac allegedly breached/abandoned the project, and Skanska hired replacements.
- Plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against The Stamford Hospital; Fidelity (surety) issued a bond in substitution under § 49‑37.
- Skanska and Fidelity moved for summary judgment; Skanska relied on affidavits claiming the hospital paid nearly the full contract price and that Skanska paid Semac/replacement contractors. Plaintiff filed no affidavits in opposition.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Skanska and Fidelity on counts alleging quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and on the bond claim; plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court reversed as to counts two (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) and three (bond/lienable fund), holding genuine issues of material fact existed and that the lienable fund is measured at the amount owed when owner receives notice of the lien (unless GC default causes completion costs that reduce the fund).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skanska entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's quantum meruit / unjust enrichment claim | Plaintiff performed at Skanska's request; Skanska accepted and benefited but never paid — factual dispute prevents summary judgment | Skanska says it paid Semac (and replacement contractors) so plaintiff cannot recover from Skanska | Reversed: genuine issue whether Skanska paid for plaintiff's specific work; movant failed to show no material factual dispute |
| Whether plaintiff may recover on the bond / mechanic's lien (lienable fund exhaustion) | Lienable fund is amount still owed by owner to GC when owner receives lien notice; because hospital still owed funds at notice, plaintiff's bond/lien claim viable | Defendants say lienable fund was exhausted because hospital subsequently paid GC the full contract price; alternatively, completion costs/bona fide payments eliminate fund | Reversed: recovery not barred merely because first‑tier was paid; lienable fund is measured at amount owed at notice unless GC default required completion costs that reduce the fund |
Key Cases Cited
- Seaman v. Climate Control Corp., 181 Conn. 592 (Conn. 1980) (second‑tier subcontractors may reach owner’s lienable fund and are not barred simply because first‑tier was paid)
- Rene Dry Wall Co. v. Strawberry Hill Assocs., 182 Conn. 568 (Conn. 1980) (discusses reduction of lienable fund by completion costs and bona fide payments)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barron, 269 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2004) (summary judgment burdens and standards)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2001) (definitions and elements of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment)
- Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 307 Conn. 582 (Conn. 2012) (quantum meruit / unjust enrichment as restitutionary doctrines)
- H & S Torrington Assocs. v. Lutz Eng’g Co., 185 Conn. 549 (Conn. 1981) (purpose and interplay of mechanic’s lien notice provisions)
- Semac Elec. Co. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 195 Conn. App. 695 (Conn. App. 2020) (related litigation addressing payments and subcontractor claims relied on by parties)