Lead Opinion
Opinion
The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-164c (e),
In reviewing a denial of a motion to dismiss, “we take the facts as expressly set forth, and necessarily implied, in the plaintiffs complaint, construing them in the light most favorable to the pleader.” C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Fleming,
In 1994, the plaintiff and the department of motor vehicles (department) entered into a contract for the establishment and operation of motor vehicle inspection facilities for the state. The contract requires the plaintiff to establish and operate a network of vehicle inspection facilities for conducting enhanced vehicle emission inspections of certain motor vehicles. Section 12 of the contract deals with dispute resolution and requires the parties to consult and work together to resolve any disputes arising under the contract. If the parties are unable to resolve a dispute through consultation, § 12 provides that the commissioner shall submit a written decision on the issue, which is final unless the plaintiff seeks review of the decision by the American Arbitration Association. Section 12 also provides that “[a]ll disputes and differences between the [plaintiff] and the [s]tate arising out of or under the [c]ontract and not so resolved through consultation, shall, at the option of either party, be settled and finally determined by arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration
The present action arises from the plaintiffs claim that the commissioner breached the contract with the plaintiff by virtue of the department’s failure to use its best efforts to enforce emissions testing compliance by creating and maintaining a registration suspension program, and that, as a consequence of that alleged failure, the plaintiff has suffered approximately $9 million in damages. After attempting to resolve the dispute through consultation with the commissioner, the plaintiff demanded that the commissioner issue a decision pursuant to § 12 of the contract. The commissioner responded by lettеr, indicating that it was the state’s position that § 12 did not apply to the plaintiffs claims for monetary damages.
Pursuant to § 52-410, the plaintiff filed an application for an order to proceed with arbitration. The commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiffs action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that, by necessary implication, § 14-164c (e) vested the commissioner with authority to waive sovereign immunity. In so concluding, the court relied on the fact that § 14-164c (e) authorizes the commissioner to enter into “negotiated” agreements in a project of considerable magnitude. This appeal followed.
The issue of whether § 14-164c (e) waives the state’s sovereign immunity presents a question of statutory construction over which we exercise plenary review. See, e.g., Dept. of Transportation v. White Oak Corp.,
Keeрing these principles of statutory construction in mind, we turn to the issue of whether the legislature, through § 14-164c (e), waived the state’s sovereign immunity. “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. ... A determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety,
In Mahoney v. Lensink,
The trial court in the present case determined that § 14-164c (e) implicitly waived sovereign immunity by granting to the commissioner the authority to negotiate inspection agreements. In arguing that the trial court properly so concluded, the plaintiff similarly relies on the grant to the commissioner of authority to negotiate the agreements.
Generаl Statutes § 14-164c (e) provides in relevant part: “In order to provide for emissions inspection facilities, the commissioner may enter into a negotiated inspection agreement or agreements, notwithstanding chapters 50, 58, 59 and 60, with an independent contractor or contractors, to provide for the leasing, construction, equipping, maintenance or operation of a system of official emissions inspection stations in such numbers and locations as may be required to provide vehicle owners reasonably convenient access to inspection facilities. . . . The inspection agreement or agreements authorized by this section shall be subject to other provisions as follows: (A) Minimum requirements for staff, equipment, management and hours and place of operation of official emissions inspection stations including such additional testing facilities as may be established and operated in accordance with subsection (g) of this section; (B) reports and documentation concerning the operation of official emissions inspection stations and additional testing facilities as the commissioner may require; (C) surveillance privileges for the commissioner to ensure compliance with standards, procedures, rules, regulations and laws; and (D) any other provision deemed necessary by the commissioner for the administration of the inspection agreement . . . ."
The plain language of the statute illustrates that the legislature’s objectives in providing the commissioner with authority
The plaintiff also relies on the fact that the statute vests the commissioner with authority to negotiate such agreements “notwithstanding chapters 50, 58, 59 and
Lastly, the plaintiff refers to the language in § 14-164c (e) that alludes to the various provisions to which the inspection agreement or agreements shall be subject, including рrovisions regarding staffing, equipment, hours and place of operation, reporting and documentation requirements, surveillance privileges for the commissioner to ensure compliance with standards and regulations, and “any other provision deemed necessary by the commissioner for the administration of the inspection agreement.” General Statutes § 14-164c (e). This catchall provision, the plaintiff claims, vests the commissioner with authority to waive sovereign immunity when such a waiver is “necessary . . . for the administration of the inspection agreement.” General Statutes § 14-164c (e). This language, however, must be understood in the context of the preceding text, which enumerates provisions that have to do with the operation of inspection stations, management of staff and regulation of quality control. Thus, “administration of the inspection agreement” reasonably may be interpreted to mean the application of the agreement to the day-to-day issues that are likely to arise in the operation of inspection stations. Likewise, the “other provisionfs]” that the commissioner deems necessary to the administration of the inspection agreement would be similar in scope. There is no suggestion that such “other provision[s]” reasonably would include provisions concerning liability or dispute resolution. Accordingly, the catchall provision does not necessarily imply that the legislature waived sovereign immunity from
Moreover, in considering whether the legislature intended to waive the state’s sovereign immunity, we note that the legislature, in enacting § 14-164c (e), “is presumed to have acted with knowledge of existing statutes and with an intent to create one consistent body of law. . . . The General Assembly is always presumed to know all the existing statutes and the effect that its action or [lack therеof] will have [on] any one of them. And it is always presumed to have intended that effect which its action or [lack thereof] produces.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, supra,
“The legislature thus presumably enacted [§ 14-164c (e)] with knowledge of our statutes requiring any person with a claim against the state to file such claim with the state claims commissioner, seeking either payment or permission to sue the state. See [generally] General Statutes § 4-141 et seq. The claims commissioner has discretionary authority to pay or reject claims, to make recommendations to the legislature with regard to claims, and to authorize suit against the state. Specifically, the claims commissioner can approve the payment of any claim for less than $7500 in damages. General Statutes § 4-158 (a). If the claim exceeds $7500, the claims commissioner must make a recommendation to the General Assembly suggesting payment or rejection, and the Gеneral Assembly may accept, reject or alter the claims commissioner’s recommendation. General Statutes § 4-159. The claims commissioner also may authorize suit against the state in Superior Court. General Statutes § 4-160 (a). We must infer that the legislature enacted [§ 14-164c (e)] knowing of these detailed statutory provisions that require claimants with indemnity claims against the state to enforce those claims through the claims commissioner.” Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, supra,
The decision to deny the motion to dismiss is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant the motion to dismiss and to render judgment thereon for the commissioner.
In this opinion NORCOTT and McLACHLAN, Js., concurred.
Notes
General Statutes § 14-164c (e) provides: “In order to provide for emissions inspection facilities, the commissioner may enter into a negotiated inspection agreement or agreements, notwithstanding chapters 50, 58, 59 and 60, with an independent contractor or contractors, to provide for the leasing, construction, equipping, maintenance or operation of a system of official emissions inspection stations in such numbers and locations as may be required to provide vehicle owners reasonably convenient access to inspection facilities. The commissioner may employ such system and the services of such contractor or contractors to conduct safety inspections as provided by section 14-16a, subsection (g) of section 14-12 and section 14-103a. Such contractor or contractors, with the approval of the commissioner, may operate inspection stations at suitable locations owned or operated by other persons, firms or corporations, including retail business establishments with adequate facilities to accommodate and to perform inspections on motor vehicles. The commissioner is prohibited from entering into an inspection agreement with any independent contractor who: (1) Is engаged in the business of maintaining or repairing vehicles in this state, except that the independent contractor shall not be precluded from maintaining or repairing any vehicle owned or operated by the independent contractor; or (2) does not have the capability, resources or technical and management skill to adequately conduct, equip, operate and maintain a sufficient number of official emissions inspection stations. All persons employed by the independent contractor in the performance of an inspection agreement are deemed to be employees of the independent contractor and not of this state. The inspection agreement or agreements authorized by this section shall be subject to other provisions as follows: (A) Minimum requirements for staff, equipment, management and hours and place of operation of official emissions inspection stаtions including such additional testing facilities as may be established and operated in accordance with subsection (g) of this section; (B) reports and documentation concerning the operation of official emissions inspection stations and additional testing facilities as the commissioner may require; (C) surveillance privileges for the commissioner to ensure compliance with standards, procedures, rules, regulations and laws; and (D) any other provision deemed necessary by the commissioner for the administration of the inspection agreement. Nothing in the inspection agreement shall require the state to purchase any asset or assume any liability if such agreement is not renewed.”
The commissioner appealed to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
General Statutes § 52-410 provides in relevant part: “(a) A pаrty to a written agreement for arbitration claiming the neglect or refusal of another to proceed with an arbitration thereunder may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, to any judge thereof, for an order directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in compliance with their agreement. The application shall be by writ of summons and complaint, served in the manner provided by law. . . .”
To a large degree, we agree with Justice Katz’ characterization in her concurrence of our decision in Mahoney v. Lensink, supra,
In her concurrence, Justice Katz criticizes our use of this definition of “necessary implication,” deriding our reliance on “a quote in a footnote in Mahoney that we have not since repeated for the proposition that a necessary implication must arise solely and unambiguously from the text of the statute.” This definition, however, is consistent with the normal usage of the phrase; for instance, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “necessary implication” as “[a]n implication so strong in its probability that anything to the contrary would be unreasonable.” (Emphasis added.) Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009). We fail to see how such a concrete, requisite implication could be derived from anything but the text of the statute, especially in light of the limited usefulness of legislative history and other extratextual sources in statutory construction. Such sources are generally used only to select between two or more reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Indeed, one well known dictionary defines “ambiguous” in relevant part as “capable of bеing understood in two or more possible senses or ways . . . .” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed. 2003); cf. Carmel Hollow Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Bethlehem,
In her concurrence, Justice Katz claims that our approach “contradicts both the analytical framework established by . . . § 1-2z and our long-standing precedent regarding sovereign immunity . . . .’’To the contrary, we believe the analysis outlined in this opinion is the only approach that is consistent with both § l-2z and our precedent. As we discussed previously in this opinion, a necessary implication, by definition, cannot be susceptible to more than one reasonable inference. To the extent that the text of a statute is ambiguous with respect to waiver, therefore, it is not ambiguous in the § 1-2z sense. The force of our precedent makes clear that the statute’s very ambiguity as to the existence of a waiver ends the interpretive inquiry in favor of preserving immunity; see, e.g., White v. Burns,
Nor, in our view, does Justice Katz point to any contradictory authority. In two of the cases that Justice Katz cites in her cоncurrence, namely, Dept. of Transportation v. White Oak Corp., supra,
We note that the issue of whether consideration of extratextual sources is necessary or appropriate when statutory language that plainly and unambiguously signifies that the legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity leads to absurd or unworkable results is not before us. Cf. Rivers v. New Britain,
In her concurrence, Justice Katz criticizes our adoption of the approach of the concurring opinion in Miller v. Egan, supra,
Although the parties treat this claim as one involving a legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, a more accurate characterization is that the plaintiff claims that the lеgislature delegated to the commissioner the power to waive sovereign immunity, which is an entirely different contention and one that implicates the separation of powers doctrine. Even if we did analyze the plaintiffs claim that the legislature accomplished such a delegation through § 14-164c (e), the plaintiffs claim still would fail because the language of § 14-164c (e) does not by force of necessary implication accomplish such a delegation of legislative authority. Moreover, even if we were to conclude that the statute did attempt to delegate the authority to waive sovereign immunity to the commissioner, we have grave doubts as to the constitutionality of such a delegation.
We note that the commissioner takes the view that § 14-164c (e) implicitly waives the state’s immunity from liability by authorizing him to negotiate the inspection agreements. We assume without deciding that the commissioner correctly asserts that the statute does effect such an implicit waiver. That conclusion, however, would not avail the plaintiff because it would not necessarily imply that the legislature has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. As we explained in Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, supra,
Because we conclude that the plaintiffs claim is not supported by the plain language of § 14-164c (e), we need not consider the plaintiffs arguments to the extent that they rely on extratextual sources in support of the meaning of the statute’s text. For that reason, the contractual language on which the plaintiff relies is irrelevant to our analysis. Specifically, the plaintiff relies on the language in § 12 of the contract, which provides in relevant part: “Except as provided in ... [§] 14-164c et seq. pursuant to which this [c]ontract is executed, the [s]tate has not waived its right of sovereign immunity.” Because we have concluded that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity in § 14-164c (e), this provision signifies that the state has not waived sovereign immunity through the contract.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. The issue in the present case is whether General Statutes § 14-164c (e)
1 begin with my disagreement with the majority’s approach as it applies to the question of ambiguity. I first note that § 1-2z provides: “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.” The legislature has provided no exception in § 1-2z for statutes implicating questions оf a waiver of sovereign immunity. Therefore, we must presume that the legislature intended for such statutes to be construed under the same rules of construction applicable to every other statute, wherein an ambiguity in the text permits resort to extratextual sources. Indeed, we have applied § 1-2z, or an analytical framework consistent with § 1-2z, to other statutes requiring a strict construction, like statutes implicating waivers of sovereign immunity.
By precluding recourse to a traditional and accepted tool of statutory analysis that even predates § 1-2z, the majority deviates from the framework we have set forth in our prior treatment of claims of waiver of sovereign immunity. See Lyon v. Jones,
For example, prior to the adoption of § 1-2z, in Mahoney v. Lensink,
As further examples of this approach after the enactment of § 1-2z and consistent with the limitations thеrein, in both Dept. of Transportation v. While Oak Corp., supra,
My second, related concern with the majority’s approach in this case is that it eviscerates our established jurisprudence regarding sovereign immunity by, in essence, precluding any finding of waiver by necessary implication. For more than a century, we have held that sovereign immunity may be waived by either “clear intention to that effect . . . disclosed by the use of express terms or by force of a necessary implication.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dept. of Transportation v. White Oak Corp., supra,
Despite our established framework, the majority in the present case adopts the view set out in the concurring opinion in Miller v. Egan,
I would resolve the present case under our established framework for the analysis of claims regarding waiver of sovereign immunity and for the construction of statutes. Here, as the majority points out, “[n]one of the language of [§ 14-164c (e)] alludes to liability, lawsuits or dispute resolution.” To the extent that the plaintiff claims that the fact that the statutе allows
onstrated its concurrence with this strict approach to waiver of immunity in the context of contract claims when it revisited § 14-164c subsequent to our decision in 184 Windsor Avenue, LLC, see Public Acts 2007, No. 07-167, § 35; but did not add any language to indicate that it intended to waive sovereign immunity for the contracts therein. See State v. Salamon,
Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
See fоotnote 1 of the majority opinion for the text of § 14-164c (e).
See, e.g., State v. Cote,
I further would note that a distinction between an inquiry into whether a statute grants waiver in a particular case and an inquiry into whether a particular claim falls within the scope of a granted waiver is unsound because our analysis of sovereign immunity waiver always has sought to determine whether statutory terms relevant to a claim, applied to the particulars of that claim. See, e.g., Rivers v. New Britain, supra,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. I agree with the result that the majority reaches. For the reasons set forth by Justice Katz in her concurring opinion, however, I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that it is improper for this court to resort to legislative history in determining whether a statute waives sovereign immunity by force of necessary implication. I see no persuasive reason why we should foreclose ourselves from consulting legislative history when it may be useful to do so because the statutory language is not crystal clear with respect to the intent of the legislature. I therefore respectfully concur.