Suntech of Conn., Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
164 A.3d 36
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Contractor Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. contracted with the State to build a technology center; Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. subcontracted to supply and install glass/curtain wall work for a lump-sum price with a required completion date and a "no damages for delay" clause unless the Owner (state) accepts responsibility and pays.
- Design disputes between the State (Department of Public Works) and the architect delayed the project; the curtain-wall connection to a pedestrian bridge also involved disputed responsibility.
- Suntech claimed it performed extra work, was hindered/interfered with by the contractor (causing extended performance), and was owed unpaid change orders and retainage; it sued the contractor and the contractor’s bond insurer for breach, delay damages, unjust enrichment, and statutory relief.
- At bench trial the court found (inter alia) the delays were primarily caused by State/architect design issues, Suntech failed to man the job properly, Suntech did not timely deliver required warranties, and there was no credible evidence of contractor-caused interference or compensable extra work.
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants; Suntech appealed raising evidentiary objections (expert testimony disclosure, late disclosure, reversed in limine ruling) and argued the court should adopt Massachusetts authority distinguishing delay from hindrance/interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Cianfaglione testimony as expert/fact witness | Court should have allowed Cianfaglione (scheduling expert retained by State in related case) to testify as an expert/fact witness; defense was not prejudiced because he was deposed | Plaintiff failed to disclose him as an expert per Practice Book; late expert testimony would prejudice defendant | Court reasonably limited witness to fact testimony and excluded expert opinion; even if some objections were sustained, any error was not shown to be harmful to plaintiff |
| Oral request to designate Cianfaglione as expert during trial | Court should have allowed the mid-testimony disclosure and held a hearing; sanction rules require a hearing before preclusion | Plaintiff failed timely disclosure; court considered the issue and the sanction was proportional | Denial of the oral disclosure was not an abuse of discretion given noncompliance with disclosure rules and lack of demonstrated prejudice |
| Reversal of motion in limine re: setoffs (last-day reopening) | Reversal deprived plaintiff of fair notice and trial preparation | Defense says documents supporting setoffs were produced during the project and in discovery; no prejudice existed | Even assuming reversal was erroneous, plaintiff failed to show resulting harm because core issue—who caused delay—was decided against plaintiff and discovery addressed damages separate from breach |
| Substance: recoverability of damages for alleged hindrance/interference vs. delay | Plaintiff: claims are for contractor-caused hindrance/interference (not mere delay) and Central Ceilings (Mass.) shows such claims can recover despite a no-damages-for-delay clause | Contractor: subcontract expressly bars delay damages absent Owner acceptance/payment; evidence shows State/architect caused delays and no credible proof of contractor interference | Court found plaintiff’s pleadings and proof tracked delay language and the subcontract unambiguously barred delay damages; no credible evidence of contractor-caused hindrance—judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mamudovski v. BIC Corp., 78 Conn. App. 715 (Conn. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and prejudice requirement)
- Dow-Westbrook, Inc. v. Candlewood Equine Practice, LLC, 119 Conn. App. 703 (Conn. App. 2010) (test for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 143 Conn. App. 581 (Conn. App. 2013) (prior Connecticut appellate decision addressing similar contract/no-damages-for-delay issues)
- Johnson v. Newell, 160 Conn. 269 (Conn. 1971) (lay witnesses with special knowledge may testify to personal observations and impressions)
- Mack v. LaValley, 55 Conn. App. 150 (Conn. App. 1999) (examples of permissible lay perception/opinion testimony)