Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC
129 Conn. App. 296
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Total Recycling and Whitewing sued Connecticut Oil Recycling for breach of three asset-related contracts and a noncompetition agreement.
- Defendant sought attorney’s fees under two contracts that included fee provisions; one contract lacked such a provision.
- Trial court held fees were not recoverable because defendant did not allocate fees to the contracts with fee provisions.
- On remand, trial court required a contract-specific fee allocation and postponed ruling; evidentiary hearing followed.
- Expert testified fees could not be neatly allocated among the contracts because the claims and transactions were interrelated.
- Appellate holding affirmed denial of attorney’s fees; the court declined to award appellate fees given lack of contract-specific allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied fees without contract-specific allocation | Total Recycling argues Heller allows non-separable fees. | Oil Recycling contends interrelated claims warrant fee recovery under contract language. | No; same transaction interconnection does not mandate full recovery. |
| Whether the law of the case doctrine or related authorities required reconsideration | Plaintiffs rely on prior remand guidance and law-of-the-case principles. | Defendant argues for broader reconsideration in light of Heller and Jacques All Trades. | No; court properly applied law of the case and did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. D.W. Fish Realty Co., 93 Conn.App. 727 (2006) (fees may be recoverable when related to a CUTPA claim and related contract claims)
- Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn.App. 189 (2000) (fees recoverable only for claims related to a CUTPA claim)
- Moasser v. Becker, 121 Conn. App. 593 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney’s fees; factual predicates)
- Genua v. Logan, 118 Conn.App. 270 (2009) (contract interpretation as a question of law; plenary review)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 118 Conn.App. 367 (2009) (appellate fees potentially recoverable under contract; extends statutes rationale)
- ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 576 (2007) (American rule with contractual exceptions for fees)
- General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi, 113 Conn.App. 673 (2009) (law-of-the-case and appellate considerations within contractual fee awards)