Girolametti v. Rizzo Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 35353.,35353.
• Citation: 97 A.3d 55,152 Conn.App. 60
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: John GIROLAMETTI, Jr., et al. v. RIZZO CORPORATION et al.

152 Conn.App. 60

97 A.3d 55

John GIROLAMETTI, Jr., et al.

v.RIZZO CORPORATION et al.

No. 35353.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 15, 2014.

Decided Aug. 5, 2014.

Michael J. Barnaby, Greenwich, for the appellant (named plaintiff).

Daniel J. Krisch, with whom, on the brief, was Alfred A. DiVincentis, Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).

BEACH, BEAR and PELLEGRINO, Js.^*

PELLEGRINO, J.

The plaintiff, John Girolametti, Jr.,¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application to confirm an arbitration award in favor of the defendant,Rizzo Corporation.² On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in confirming the arbitration award because it disregarded the requirements of state law concerning professional licensing and improperly determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve the issue of the legality of the arbitration agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to the resolution of the plaintiff's claims. In 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract, whereby the defendant would serve as the general contractor in building an addition to a Party Depot store owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted to the defendant a form contract drafted by the American Institute of Architects provided by the plaintiff's architect. The defendant signed the contract, which contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes. This agreement provided in relevant part: “All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the Contractor and Owner arising out of, or relating to, the Contract Documents or the breach thereof ... shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.... The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”

When a dispute arose in April, 2009, the defendant submitted the dispute to arbitration in accordance with its agreement with the plaintiff, which the plaintiff initially agreed to and cooperated in. The arbitration began in December, 2009, and continued over a period of thirty-five sessions. The plaintiff attended and participated in every session except the last two, which he refused to attend. The arbitrator later entered his award on March 28, 2011, in favor of the defendant.

Before the arbitrator rendered his award, the plaintiff, on December 15, 2010, filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment and arguing that the contract between the parties was void. Girolametti v. Rizzo Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. CV–11–6005230–S, 2013 WL 452764 (January 3, 2013).³ The defendant then filed an application to confirm the arbitration award in this action, to which the plaintiff filed an objection. On January 3, 2013, the court granted the defendant's application and also rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the declaratory judgment complaint. This appeal followed.

The standard of review for arbitration disputes is well settled. “Judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined.... When the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement.... When the scope of the submission is unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.... Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution....

“Where the submission does not otherwise state, the arbitrators are empowered to decide factual and legal questions and an award cannot be vacated on the grounds that ... the interpretation of the agreement by the arbitrators was erroneous. Courts will not review the evidence nor, where the submission is unrestricted, will they review the arbitrators' decision of the legal questions involved.... In other words, [u]nder an unrestricted submission, the arbitrators' decision is considered final and binding; thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zelvin v. JEM Builders, Inc., 106 Conn.App. 401, 406, 942 A.2d 455 (2008).

The plaintiff contends that despite his untimely application to vacate the arbitration award, this court can still consider his claim of illegality because the contract, and therefore the arbitration agreement, is void.⁴ He argues that the parties' contract violates state professional licensing laws because the defendant lacked the capacity to enter into a contract with the plaintiff. He also argues that he preserved this issue for appeal when he raised the legality of the contract in his opening statement at the arbitration hearing and when he “repeatedly demonstrated that [the] defendant ‘offered’ to provide professional engineering services for the entire project” without being licensed as an engineer. The plaintiff therefore concludes that the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award. The defendant argues that the court properly granted its application to confirm the arbitration award for two primary reasons. First, the plaintiff failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he did not challenge the legality of the parties' contract or its arbitration clause during the arbitration, and, therefore, he waived any right to appeal. Second, the plaintiff did not file a timely application to vacate the arbitration award.⁵ The defendant therefore concludes that the plain language of General Statutes § 52–417⁶ and Connecticut case law required the court to grant its application. We agree with the defendant.

“We long have recognized two procedural routes by which a party may preserve the issue of the arbitrability of a particular dispute for judicial determination.... A party initially may refuse to submit to an arbitration and instead compel a judicial determination of the issue of arbitrability.... Alternatively, the issue of arbitrability may properly be left to an arbitrator or arbitration panel for a determination, along with the merits of the underlying dispute.... In the latter situation, a court may properly entertain a challenge to an award alleging disregard of the limits in the parties' agreement with respect to arbitration.... Such a claim may be raised through a collateral judicial action prior to the arbitration, through an application or motion to vacate the arbitration award or through an objection to the confirmation of the arbitration award.... [A] party seeking to vacate an award on the basis of one or more of the grounds enumerated in [General Statutes] § 52–418⁷ must comply with the requirements of § 52–420(b).... Specifically, a party who objects to an arbitration award on the basis of a ground specified in § 52–418 must do so within thirty days from notice of the award.” ⁸ Citations omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 283 Conn. 381, 392–93, 926 A.2d 1035 (2007).

Before reaching the merits of the plaintiff's claims, we first must determine whether the plaintiff properly preserved the issue for appeal. A party has two procedural options. Under the first method, a party may refuse to submit to arbitration at the outset and instead compel a judicial determination of the issue of arbitrability. In the present case, the plaintiff participated in the arbitration for thirty-three out of the thirty-five sessions. Only after these thirty-three sessions did he stop attending and file this action in court. The plaintiff, therefore, did not refuse to submit to arbitration at the outset. Thus, he failed to follow the appropriate procedure for raising an objection with the trial court. See JCV Investment Group, Inc. v. Manjoney, 56 Conn.App. 320, 323, 742 A.2d 438 (2000).

The alternative method to preserve an issue for appeal is for the party to present the issue to the arbitrator during arbitration. The plaintiff claims that his “counsel raised concerns with the arbitrator in December of 2009 regarding code violations in the building and [made] the arbitrator aware that he was waiting for the review of the building inspector. [He] further [contends] that [his] counsel specifically stated at the beginning of the hearings that the arbitration and contract were illegal because the defendant apparently undertook engineering responsibilities without a license.” The court, after considering this argument, ruled against the plaintiff. It found that “[i]n [a] ... letter from the arbitrator to the parties, which discussed the arbitrator's inquiries regarding the [plaintiff's] absence from the previous hearings, the arbitrator records the [plaintiff's] reason as being ‘unwilling to continue’ the arbitration. He did not mention as a reason the alleged illegality of the contract. When the award itself was completed, it only listed the [plaintiff's] claims regarding structural integrity, and did not make findings on the illegality of the underlying contract or the arbitration agreement. Therefore, although the [plaintiff] may have stated [his] suspicions that the contract and arbitration agreement were illegal, the court must assume that the arbitrator did not consider the issue as having been raised during the arbitration. Under an arbitration clause, the arbitrator is given broad discretion to determine the issues, and may ‘decide whether additional evidence is required or would merely prolong the proceedings...