149 Conn. App. 839
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- R.I. Pools sued Paramount Concrete under the Connecticut Product Liability Act alleging Shotcrete sold by Paramount was defectively mixed/constituted and caused cracking in 19 luxury pools, producing property damage and repair/replacement costs.
- At trial the jury found Paramount liable, allocated 100% fault to Paramount for each of the 19 pools, and awarded $2,760,207.90 in compensatory damages; the jury also found entitlement to punitive damages.
- Interrogatories showed the jury awarded an identical $145,274.10 for each pool (total equals the overall award divided equally), despite material differences in evidence about each pool’s damages and some pools having settled pretrial for much smaller amounts.
- The trial court denied Paramount’s motion to set aside the verdict, then (after a hearing) awarded punitive damages equal to plaintiffs’ attorney fees as calculated by the court, using a lodestar hourly rate higher than the rate the plaintiff had actually agreed to.
- On appeal the court affirmed liability and that punitive damages could be awarded for property damage under §52-240b, but reversed the compensatory award as unsupported by the record and reversed the punitive award as improperly calculated; remanded for a new damages hearing and a recalculation of punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/sufficiency of expert causation (four pools not personally inspected) | Feldman’s opinion relied on tests, similar crack patterns, testimony and hypotheticals — sufficient basis to attribute cracking to defective Shotcrete | Feldman lacked firsthand inspection/testing of four pools and relied on inadmissible or insufficient hearsay, so causation as to those pools cannot support verdict | Court: Expert may base opinion on facts learned from others and hypotheticals reasonably grounded in evidence; causation evidence was sufficient and jury could credit it |
| Sufficiency/form of compensatory damages award | Overall award matched plaintiff’s gross damages figure presented at closing; any mathematical allocation by jury is a harmless form defect | Award unsupported: identical per-pool awards contradict per-pool evidence, exceed proven past costs for some pools, and likely include excluded lost profits; verdict must be set aside as to damages | Court: Interrogatories must be read literally; identical per-pool awards unsupported by evidence — trial court abused discretion in denying motion to set aside damages; compensatory award reversed and remanded for new damages hearing |
| Availability of punitive damages where harm is property-only | Punitive damages proper under §52-240b because statute’s definition of "harm" includes property damage and the statute permits punitive awards for reckless disregard causing harm | Statute should not allow punitive damages for property-only claims unless there was a risk of bodily injury to users/consumers | Court: §52-240b plainly permits punitive damages for property damage; because the record does not establish jury relied only on a theory excluded by defendant, and evidence supported risk to users, punitive damages availability affirmed |
| Proper measure/amount of punitive damages | Court may limit punitive damages to plaintiff’s litigation expenses less taxable costs (common-law rule) and must use actual expenses incurred by plaintiff | Court erred by awarding punitive damages based on an upward-adjusted lodestar rate ($325) instead of the discounted hourly rate ($150) the plaintiff actually agreed to; award exceeded plaintiff’s actual litigation expenses and violated due process | Court: Punitive damages must be limited to plaintiff’s litigation expenses less taxable costs here; trial court improperly used a higher lodestar rate — punitive award reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (Conn. 1997) (elements required for strict products liability claim)
- Viera v. Cohen, 283 Conn. 412 (Conn. 2007) (interrogatories and intelligibility of verdict)
- Milliun v. New Milford Hospital, 310 Conn. 711 (Conn. 2013) (expert opinion may be based on inadmissible hearsay if reliable)
- Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786 (Conn. 1992) (common-law rule limiting punitive damages to plaintiff’s litigation expenses less taxable costs)
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509 (Conn. 1989) (nature and purpose of punitive damages; awarded for outrageous conduct)
- Weyant v. Kristy, 126 Conn. App. 180 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard of review for denial of motion to set aside verdict)
- Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 226 Conn. 282 (Conn. 1993) (discussion of punitive damages measurement and principles)