Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Caridi
73 A.3d 863
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- SRC Construction obtained a performance/payment bond from Travelers (plaintiff) and three indemnitors (defendants Michael and Jill Caridi and SRC) executed an indemnity agreement in 2001/2002 as a condition of the bond.
- In April 2009 the Atlantic City Housing Authority terminated SRC’s contract for the senior living center and demanded Travelers complete the project; Travelers completed the project under the bond.
- Travelers filed a prejudgment remedy application in Connecticut (March 2011) seeking roughly $1.27M based on payments made and anticipated under the bond and attached an unsigned Connecticut complaint seeking specific performance and indemnification under the indemnity agreement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the trial court prejudged the merits before defendants presented evidence, (2) the action was time-barred because accrual occurred in 2005, and (3) the Connecticut prejudgment remedy was improper because an allegedly identical action was pending in New York.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, held Travelers met the probable-cause standard, issued the prejudgment remedy and authorized attachment of defendants’ Connecticut real estate; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court deprived defendants of a meaningful hearing by predetermining the merits | Travelers said the court simply resolved a §15-8 motion and gave defendants full opportunity to present evidence thereafter | Defendants said the court’s comments showed it had decided the case before defendants could present evidence, denying due process | Court: No deprivation. Court properly ruled on §15-8 motion, invited defendants to present evidence, defendants declined to present further proof, so no denial of opportunity |
| When the statute of limitations accrued for Travelers’ indemnity claim | Travelers argued accrual occurred in 2009 when the housing authority declared SRC in default and demanded Travelers complete the project | Defendants argued accrual occurred in 2005 (based on $884 attorney fee entry and housing authority concerns) making the action untimely | Court: Accrual was 2009 (May demand/termination). Finding supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Connecticut court lacked jurisdiction to grant prejudgment remedy because similar action was pending in New York | Travelers argued the unsigned complaint attached to the application alleged a contemplated Connecticut action to enforce the indemnity agreement, so §52-278c permitted the prejudgment remedy | Defendants relied on Cahaly, claiming Travelers sought attachment to secure a foreign judgment or a claim tied to pending NY litigation | Court: Cahaly inapplicable; complaint reflected a contemplated domestic Connecticut action, so prejudgment remedy was proper; pendency in NY did not divest Connecticut court |
| Application of prior-pending-action or forum/abstention doctrines | Travelers said prior-pending doctrine doesn’t apply across different jurisdictions and the remedy statute governs | Defendants argued identity of claims justified dismissal or abstention | Court: Prior-pending doctrine only applies to same jurisdiction; different-state action not a bar; dismissal not required |
Key Cases Cited
- TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132 (broad trial-court discretion in granting prejudgment remedies; review is highly deferential)
- Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co., 268 Conn. 264 (prejudgment remedy statute does not permit attachments to secure prospective foreign-judgment enforcement)
- General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi, 113 Conn. App. 673 (distinguishes Cahaly where attachment is sought for a contemplated domestic action)
- Jarvis v. Lieder, 117 Conn. App. 129 (statute-of-limitations factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Balboa Ins. Co. v. Zaleski, 12 Conn. App. 529 (indemnity agreement/attorney-fee contexts relevant to default and indemnity obligations)
- Soltesz v. Miller, 56 Conn. App. 114 (contrast where court denied prejudgment remedy without evidentiary hearing)
- Sauter v. Sauter, 4 Conn. App. 581 (prior pending action doctrine limited to actions in same jurisdiction)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (prior pending action doctrine and jurisdictional implications)