ARB CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., (AC 22233).
Decision Date | 18 February 2003 |
Docket Number | (AC 22233). |
Citation | 815 A.2d 705,75 Conn. App. 151 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ARB CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. PINNEY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION |
Glenn T. Terk, for the appellant (defendant).
Margaret Fogerty Rattigan, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant, Pinney Construction Corporation, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in a breach of contract action awarding $149,616 to the plaintiff, ARB Construction, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the contract between the parties was clear and unambiguous, (2) concluded that the defendant did not meet its burden of proof on its counterclaim that the plaintiff's work was unskillful, negligent or unworkmanlike and (3) prevented the defendant from introducing a site plan into evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The court made the following factual findings in its memorandum of decision.
The plaintiff subsequently commenced work on the project. The plaintiff entered into a contract with Empire Paving, Inc. (Empire), to perform both the reclaiming and paving of the parking lot. The plaintiff was to be responsible for payment to Empire for the reclamation costs, and the defendant was to be responsible for the paving costs. The court found that the plaintiff contracted with Empire on behalf of the defendant only as a convenience.
The court concluded that paving was not included in the contract between the parties because the contract was clear and unambiguous that only a reclaimed parking lot was required. Furthermore, the court determined that the term "reclaimed parking lot" did not encompass paving. This appeal followed.
The defendant's first claim on appeal is that the court improperly determined that the contract was clear and unambiguous as to the inclusion of paving. The defendant argues that the contract term "reclaimed parking lot" was an ambiguous term that required paving to be done, and, therefore, the plaintiff was responsible under the contract for the paving of the parking lot.1 We do not agree. The defendant's claim raises a mixed issue of fact and law. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Putnam Park Associates v. Fahnestock & Co., 73 Conn. App. 1, 8, 807 A.2d 991 (2002). Where a technical or special meaning is intended by the language of the contract, that meaning, and not the language's ordinary usage, shall be employed. See New England Petroleum Corp. v. Groppo, 214 Conn. 444, 450, 572 A.2d 970 (1990).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Putnam Park Associates v. Fahnestock & Co., supra, 73 Conn. App. 8. "When. . . the trial court draws conclusions of law . . . we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Murphy, Inc. v. Remodeling, Etc., Inc., 62 Conn. App. 517, 522, 772 A.2d 154, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 916, 773 A.2d 945 (2001). Our standard of review, therefore, is plenary. See Aubin v. Miller, 64 Conn. App. 781, 790, 781 A.2d 396 (2001).
"Contract language is unambiguous when it has a definite and precise meaning about which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Christian v. Gouldin, 72 Conn. App. 14, 20, 804 A.2d 865 (2002). "A court will not torture words to import ambiguity where the ordinary meaning leaves no room for ambiguity, and words do not become ambiguous simply because lawyers or laymen contend for different meanings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mallozzi v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 72 Conn. App. 620, 628, 806 A.2d 97, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 915, 811 A.2d 1292 (2002). "[A] presumption that the language used is definitive arises when, as in the present case, the contract at issue is between sophisticated parties and is commercial in nature." United Illuminating Co. v. Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC, 259 Conn. 665, 670, 791 A.2d 546 (2002).
Here, the court engaged in a two step process in construing the contract. First, the court concluded that the contract was clear and unambiguous because paving was not expressly listed as a task to be performed on the contract. The plaintiff, therefore, was responsible for only a reclaimed parking lot. We agree with the court. The contract clearly lists the jobs to be performed, and paving is not listed. The contract is clear and unambiguous that only a reclaimed parking lot was required.
Because the contract clearly and unambiguously required a reclaimed parking lot, the court then proceeded to construe the contract according to that term. See Putnam Park Associates v. Fahnestock & Co., supra, 73 Conn. App. 8. That required the court to define reclaimed parking lot as it is used in the construction field.2 The court made the following factual finding in its memorandum of decision:
The court's determination of the special meaning of the term "reclaimed parking lot" is based on a finding of fact. We review the court's finding of fact using the clearly erroneous standard. Id., 11. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 12. The court's definition of "reclaimed parking lot" is not clearly erroneous. Burnham testified that a reclaimed parking lot is "when you grind it up to a material that's less than three inches in diameter." That requires the use of a machine that "turns the pavement up" and "fluffs it." The parking lot could be left in that condition without paving. The plaintiff's expert, John R. Cullina, defined reclaiming as The defendant's expert, Deborah Brown, testified that reclaiming a parking lot included grinding up the old pavement and that this could be rolled over before paving to compact it and that it would then be overlaid with asphalt. Furthermore, Gary Zimmitti, the owner of Technical Excavation, stated that reclaiming includes pulverizing the old pavement, removing unsuitable reclaimed material, grading the reclaimed material and that then pavement would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler v. O'Connor
... ... construction contract, negligent supervision of ... O'Connor's ... Development Corp. v. West Haven , 201 Conn. 305, 312, 514 ... A.2d 734 ... ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction ... Corporation , 75 Conn.App. 151, ... ...
-
Whitney v. J.M. Scott Assocs., Inc.
...of review, therefore, is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 75 Conn. App 151, 154-55, 815 A.2d 705 (2003). The principles governing contract interpretation are well settled. "The intent of the parties as expre......
-
Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc.
...court that we will review for abuse of that discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 75 Conn. App. 151, 162, 815 A.2d 705 (2003). We conclude that all three requirements have been First, the order with which the defendants were req......
-
Whitney v. J.M. Scott Assocs., Inc.
...of review, therefore, is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 75 Conn.App. 151, 154–55, 815 A.2d 705 (2003).The principles governing contract interpretation are well settled. “The intent of the parties as expres......
-
Argumentative questions
...of defendant about whether his testimony was “pathetic” and “despicable.” 12 ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 815 A.2d 705, 75 Conn.App. 151 (2003). Even in civil actions, cross-examination is an absolute right afforded to the parties. In determining whether or not the tr......
-
Argumentative Questions
...of defendant about whether his testimony was “pathetic” and “despicable.” 9 ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 815 A.2d 705, 75 Conn.App. 151 (2003). Even in civil actions, cross-examination is an absolute right afforded to the parties. In determining whether or not the tri......
-
Argumentative Questions
...of defendant about whether his testimony was “pathetic” and “despicable.” 10 ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 815 A.2d 705, 75 Conn.App. 151 (2003). Even in civil actions, cross-examination is an absolute right afforded to the parties. In determining whether or not the tr......
-
Argumentative Questions
...of defendant about whether his testimony was “pathetic” and “despicable.” 9 ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp., 815 A.2d 705, 75 Conn.App. 151 (2003). Even in civil actions, cross-examination is an absolute right afforded to the parties. In determining whether or not the tri......