343 Conn. 773
Conn.2022Background
- Winakor contracted with Golden Hammer to build a new single-family home; that contract allowed Winakor to subcontract the site work portion for a $55,000 credit.
- Winakor separately contracted with Savalle to perform site work (excavate foundation/well trenches, install septic and footing drains, build retaining walls and driveways, grade/landscape, etc.); Savalle agreed to complete work within one year.
- Golden Hammer completed the house and obtained certificates of occupancy while Savalle had not finished the site work; town planning required additional site work for full zoning compliance.
- Winakor terminated Savalle for poor quality and delay, hired another contractor to finish and repair work, and sued Savalle for breach of contract, violations of the Home Improvement Act (HIA) and the New Home Construction Contractors Act (New Home Act), and CUTPA (predicated on HIA/New Home Act violations).
- Trial court found for Winakor on breach, HIA and CUTPA (awarded damages and attorney's fees); the Appellate Court affirmed breach but held the HIA did not apply (new-home exception), reversing the HIA- and CUTPA-based relief; the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Winakor) | Defendant's Argument (Savalle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Home Improvement Act apply to Savalle's site work? | Site work was a distinct "home improvement" not excluded by the new-home exception. | The site work was part of construction of a new home and falls within the new-home exception. | Held: HIA does not apply; work falls within the new-home exception. |
| Were Savalle's services sufficiently distinct (not interrelated) from Golden Hammer's new-home construction? | Separate contracts and different contractors mean work was independent. | Many tasks were within Golden Hammer's scope; work was temporally and physically interdependent and required coordination. | Held: Work was interrelated (included in Golden Hammer's scope, timing and communication linked), so it was part of new-home construction. |
| Can a CUTPA claim lie based on the trial court's finding of HIA violations? | HIA violations support a per se CUTPA claim. | If HIA does not apply, there is no statutory predicate for CUTPA. | Held: Because HIA inapplicable, the CUTPA per se theory fails. |
| Are other statutory remedies available and was breach of contract relief sustained? | Without HIA, plaintiff lacks consumer protections. | The New Home Act provides the appropriate statutory scheme for new-home construction. | Held: Legislature intended New Home Act to cover new-home work; Winakor abandoned his New Home Act claim on appeal; breach of contract finding was affirmed and provides the plaintiff's remedy here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 232 Conn. 666 (1995) (defines new-home exception: work falls outside HIA only if not "so interrelated, temporally or otherwise," with new-home construction)
- Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155 (1999) (statutory construction standard: questions of law reviewed plenarily)
- State v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 286 Conn. 454 (2008) (interpretive guidance on reading statutory text in context and ambiguity test)
- Laser Contracting, LLC v. Torrance Family Ltd. Partnership, 108 Conn. App. 222 (2008) (work directly affecting habitability can fall within new-home exception)