Thorsen v. DURKIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC
20 A.3d 707
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Gail Thorsen contracted with Durkin Development for land purchase and home construction; Durkin Construction was the general contractor.
- Closing occurred November 10, 2005; construction defects, notably basement water, were reported starting December 2005.
- Complaint asserted four counts: breach of contract (Durkin Development), CUTPA (Durkin Development), fraud/civil conspiracy (Durkin Development, Durkin Construction, and Debbieann Durkin), and CUTPA (Durkin Construction).
- Jury found in plaintiff’s favor on counts 1, 2, and 4; on count 3, plaintiff prevailed only against Durkin Development.
- Damages included $30,221.43 in compensatory damages against Durkin Construction and $1 against Durkin Development; punitive damages and attorney’s fees were awarded against both entities.
- Defendants challenged juror for cause, contested damages and punitive/fees awards, and moved to set aside/remittitur; trial court denied these motions and the verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias for cause | Defense failed to show actual bias; juror remained impartial. | Juror was plaintiff-oriented and biased; court should have excused for cause. | Court properly denied challenge for cause; no actual bias shown. |
| Reasonableness of compensatory damages against Durkin Construction | Damages reflect plaintiff’s costs for remedies and related expenditures. | Damages improperly include upgrades/contract enhancements beyond breach. | Damages were reasonably supported and not plainly excessive. |
| Punitive damages under CUTPA and Fraud | Punitive damages warranted for reckless or wanton conduct; separate from compensatory awards. | Punitive awards are excessive and not properly linked to compensatory damages. | Punitive damages upheld; within trial court discretion and grounded in instructions. |
| Attorney's fees under CUTPA | Fees should be awarded based on reasonable work performed, not recovery amount. | Fees are excessive/unreasonable given the recovery. | Attorney's fees awarded as reasonable under CUTPA, based on work performed. |
| Motions to set aside the verdict and remittitur | Record supports verdict; no basis to set aside or remittitur. | Judgment warrants set aside/remittitur due to errors. | Appellate review declined due to insufficient record for articulation; motions affirmed implicitly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. New Britain General Hospital, 203 Conn. 570 (Conn. 1987) (trial judge's discretion on juror dismissal for bias)
- Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., 284 Conn. 645 (Conn. 2007) (standards for reviewing damages as not plainly excessive)
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2000) (jury should follow court's instructions; standard on adherence)
- Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207 (Conn. 1996) (motion to set aside verdict; standard of review)
- Perkins v. Colonial Cemeteries, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 646 (Conn. App. 1999) (articulation requirements in appellate review)
- Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. 1998) (attorney's fees measured by work reasonably performed)
- Gill v. Petrazzuoli Bros., Inc., 10 Conn. App. 22 (Conn. App. 1987) (CUTPA attorney's fees framework)