Weitz Co., Inc. v. Shoreline Care Ltd. Partnership
| Decision Date | 07 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 14208,14208 |
| Citation | 666 A.2d 835,39 Conn.App. 641 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The WEITZ COMPANY, INC. v. SHORELINE CARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. |
Raymond A. Garcia, with whom, on the brief, was Gary Sheldon, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Barry J. Waters, with whom, on the brief, was Laura E. Evangelista, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before LANDAU, SCHALLER and HENNESSY, JJ.
The defendant, Shoreline Care Limited Partnership (Shoreline), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a permanent injunction restraining it from proceeding with arbitration. Shoreline claims that the trial court improperly granted the permanent injunction in that the court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant's claim was arbitrable and (2) failed to conclude that the contract, as amended by the parties, subjected disputes under the contract to arbitration.
The trial court found the following facts. On October 5, 1989, the plaintiff, The Weitz Company, Inc. (Weitz), as a general contractor, entered into a written contract with Shoreline, as owner, for the construction of a continuing care retirement community known as Evergreen Woods located in North Branford. The parties agreed that the construction of the project would be accomplished in two phases. Although the phase I portion of the contract incorporated the American Institute of Architects' general conditions of contracts for construction, it expressly deleted the arbitration section of the general conditions. The contract further expressly deleted all references to arbitration of the phase I contract.
By agreement between the parties, dated April 30, 1991, the parties modified the terms of the October 5, 1989 contract. Under the amended agreement, any and all issues, claims or disputes between the parties concerning the phase II portion of the contract were made subject to arbitration.
On June 7, 1994, Shoreline filed a demand for arbitration claiming that Weitz had breached the contract, and further claiming that the parties had agreed to arbitrate all disputes under phase I and phase II of the contract Weitz filed an objection claiming that the alleged breach was not arbitrable because it pertained to phase I. An arbitrator determined that the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator and ordered both parties to proceed. Weitz thereafter filed its application for an injunction.
After finding the necessary prerequisites of irreparable harm and no adequate remedy at law, the trial court issued a permanent injunction 1 restraining Shoreline from proceeding with the arbitration it demanded on June 7, 1994. The court found that the phase II work was subject to arbitration based on the April 30, 1991 agreement, and the phase I work was not subject to arbitration because of the terms of the October 5, 1989 agreement. The court further found that the October 5, 1989 agreement was not amended insofar as it applied to arbitration of phase I disputes.
Shoreline posits that the trial court failed to apply the required "positive assurance" test. This test, first articulated in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960), is employed by the courts in our state to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable. See, e.g., Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Board v. Sullivan, 173 Conn. 1, 14, 376 A.2d 399 (1977); Board of Police Commissioners v. Maher, 171 Conn. 613, 621, 370 A.2d 1076 (1976). Weitz argues that the trial court applied the appropriate standard, and merely failed to state the talismanic "positive assurance" language. Weitz claims the court's ruling is no less binding as a result of this oversight.
We may reverse or modify the decision of the trial court if we determine that the factual findings are clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record, or that the decision is otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061. In this case the facts are not in dispute. The trial court received documents in evidence and heard arguments as to their interpretation and meaning. Therefore, we need only to determine whether the trial court was incorrect as a matter of law. Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Bannon, 222 Conn. 49, 53, 607 A.2d 424 (1992).
To resolve this issue, we apply the positive assurance test. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scinto v. Sosin
...court, unless, by appropriate language, the parties have agreed to arbitrate that question, also.'" Weitz Co. v. Shoreline Care Ltd. Partnership, 39 Conn. App. 641, 644, 666 A.2d 835 (1995); College Plaza, Inc. v. Harlaco, Inc., 152 Conn. 707, 708, 206 A.2d 832 (1965). Whether the parties i......
-
Bell v. Cendant Corp.
...or from the use of broad terms." Id. at 556 (citing Welch, 576 A.2d at 155). However, relying on Weitz Co. v. Shoreline Care Ltd. P'ship, 39 Conn.App. 641, 666 A.2d 835, 837 (1995), the Scinto court found that the "broad arbitration clause d[id] not, by itself, deny the trial court jurisdic......
-
Computerized Vehicle Registration v. General Sys. Solutions, Inc., No. 4006274 (Conn. Super. 11/8/2006), 4006274
...the parties have agreed to arbitrate that question, also." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weitz Co. v. Shoreline Care Ltd. Partnership, 39 Conn.App. 641, 644, 666 A.2d 835 (1995); College Plaza, Inc. v. Harlaco, Inc. 152 Conn. 707, 708, 206 A.2d 832 (1965). Whether the parties intended......
-
Jarrar v. Colt's Manufacturing Co., Inc.
...whether the reluctant party did agree to arbitrate the grievance." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weitz Co. v. Shoreline Care Ltd. Partnership, supra, 39 Conn.App. 644. Therefore, to resolve this issue, the positive assurance test must be applied. We hold that the court properly conclu......