189 Conn. App. 587
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Seale bought a Westport property where a prior owner discovered an underground storage tank leak; GeoQuest was hired to supervise soil remediation before Seale’s purchase.
- GeoQuest’s employee, licensed environmental professional Jay Soltis, supervised removal of ~41 tons of soil on Aug. 12–13, 2014 and emailed a report stating the release had been "effectively remediated" and "no further environmental investigation or remediation is warranted at this time," with laboratory results below detection limits.
- Later, when the house was demolished and the property prepared for sale, another contractor (EnviroShield) and licensed professional Mark Gottlieb found much more contaminated soil remaining and estimated larger removals were needed; Seale spent ~$45,000 on additional remediation.
- Seale sued GeoQuest for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, arguing GeoQuest breached the standard of care in its remediation (insufficient excavation depth, lack of bottom sampling, missing photos/sketches, and failure to disclose remaining contamination or recommend further investigation).
- At bench trial the court credited testimony from three licensed environmental professionals (Soltis, GeoQuest president Marc Casslar, and Gottlieb) that GeoQuest complied with CT DEEP guidance and industry standards, found no breach of duty, and entered judgment for GeoQuest. Seale appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Seales Argument | GeoQuests Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did GeoQuest breach the standard of care in remediation? | GeoQuest failed to excavate sufficiently, omitted bottom samples, photos/sketch, and failed to disclose remaining contamination or to recommend further investigation. | GeoQuest followed CT DEEP guidance and industry standards; limitations (e.g., building stability) justified incomplete excavation. | Court found no breach; trial judges credibility determinations supported by evidence. |
| Was there negligent misrepresentation? | Soltiss report stating "effectively remediated" and "no further investigation warranted" was false and relied on by Seale. | No actionable misrepresentation because there was no breach and the report conformed to guidance; report did not falsely assert all contamination was removed. | No misrepresentation found because no underlying breach proved. |
| Proper standard of review for factual sufficiency? | N/A (appellant challenges findings). | N/A | Appellate review: whether trial courts factual finding was clearly erroneous; deference to trial judge as sole arbiter of witness credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky, 280 Conn. 190 (Conn. 2006) (breach-of-duty determination reserved for trier of fact)
- Arroyo v. University of Connecticut Health Center, 175 Conn. App. 493 (Conn. App. 2017) (trial judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility in bench trials)
- Coppola Construction Co. v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 309 Conn. 342 (Conn. 2013) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Mirjavadi v. Vakilzadeh, 310 Conn. 176 (Conn. 2013) (deference to factfinder on breach and credibility)
- Lawrence v. O & G Industries, Inc., 319 Conn. 641 (Conn. 2015) (elements of negligence)
- Behlman v. Universal Travel Agency, Inc., 4 Conn. App. 688 (Conn. App. 1985) (factual determinations for breach reserved to trier)
- National Groups, LLC v. Nardi, 145 Conn. App. 189 (Conn. App. 2013) (standards for negligent misrepresentation)