Squillante v. Capital Region Development Authority ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • ***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
    ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
    lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
    released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
    ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions
    and petitions for certification is the “officially released”
    date appearing in the opinion.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut
    Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of
    discrepancies between the advance release version of an
    opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut
    Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
    or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to
    be considered authoritative.
    The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the
    opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and
    bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the
    Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not
    be reproduced and distributed without the express written
    permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
    tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ***********************************************
    APPENDIX
    DAVID SQUILLANTE ET AL. v. CAPITAL
    REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY*
    Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
    File No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S
    Memorandum filed July 18, 2018
    Proceedings
    Memorandum of decision on defendant’s motion for
    summary judgment. Motion granted.
    Matthew S. Carlone, for the plaintiffs.
    Benjamin C. Jensen, for the defendant.
    Opinion
    NOBLE, J.
    The question presented by the motion for summary
    judgment of the defendant, the Capital Region Develop-
    ment Authority (CRDA), is whether, in the absence of
    disputed material facts, CRDA is entitled to judgment
    as a matter of law on the breach of contract, promissory
    estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims
    asserted by the plaintiffs, David Squillante (Squillante)
    and DJS45, LLC (DJS45). The court finds that no
    enforceable agreement was created between the parties
    and holds that judgment should enter on all three claims
    in favor of CRDA.
    FACTS
    The following facts and procedural history are rele-
    vant to this decision. This action was commenced by
    service of process on CRDA on July 26, 2016. The opera-
    tive complaint is the amended complaint dated Novem-
    ber 14, 2017 (complaint), which asserts in three counts,
    respectively, claims of breach of contract, promissory
    estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. Squillante is
    the sole member of DJS45, a limited liability company.
    CRDA is a quasi-municipal corporation created by stat-
    ute,1 whose purpose is to ‘‘stimulate new investment
    within the capital region’’ and ‘‘encourage residential
    housing development.’’ General Statutes § 32-602 (a)
    (1) and (3). Squillante formed DJS45, which thereafter
    purchased a five-story commercial building located at
    283-291 Asylum Street in Hartford (property). Squillante
    opened a restaurant in the ground floor of the property
    and sought financing for the renovation and conversion
    of the upper four floors into residential apartments.
    Beginning in early 2013, Squillante engaged in conversa-
    tions with representatives of CRDA about potential
    financing that resulted in the execution of a letter dated
    May 10, 2013 (letter). CRDA ultimately withdrew the
    offer to provide financing. The plaintiffs assert that the
    letter constitutes a binding contract, evinces a promise
    to provide financing upon which the plaintiffs reason-
    ably relied, and contains misrepresentations upon
    which the plaintiffs relied to their detriment.
    In particular, the letter provides that CRDA was
    ‘‘pleased to provide you with the terms and conditions
    under which CRDA will extend financial assistance for
    the conversion of 283-91 Asylum Street (the ‘Project’)
    into a mixed use residential project. The terms set forth
    below are intended to be a preliminary outline of gen-
    eral business terms of the potential project and are
    expressly subject to the completion of CRDA due dili-
    gence investigation including the provisions of neces-
    sary documents as outlined below and the securing of
    complete financing for the Project. This letter is not
    intended to create any legal liability for CRDA and is
    to serve as an explanation of assistance to be provided
    by CRDA.’’ (Emphasis added.) The letter was signed by
    Squillante, on behalf of DJS45, and Michael Freimuth,
    executive director of the CRDA, on its behalf. The letter
    proposed a construction loan for an unspecified amount
    not more than $575,000 and then a permanent loan of
    an also unspecified amount, but no more than $518,000
    for a twenty year term at 1.5 percent.
    Several terms and various contingencies remained
    unresolved. Because CRDA was only funding a portion
    of the project, the amount that it would actually lend
    depended upon (a) the amount of funding DJS45 was
    able to secure from private lenders, and (b) the amount
    of state historic tax credits to be awarded.2 The letter
    specified that DJS45 ‘‘must present a final development
    budget and project application that will be incorporated
    into a formal Assistance Agreement between CRDA and
    Sponsor. Sponsor shall be responsible for the payment
    of all necessary and appropriate costs associated with
    this transaction, whether or not a closing takes place
    . . . .’’ The formal assistance agreement was never exe-
    cuted. Other terms were not identified by the letter,
    including dates for completion of any obligations. The
    letter provided that DJS45 ‘‘shall be responsible for
    any costs above the budget outlined in this letter to
    complete the Project in accordance with the plans and
    specifications finally approved by CRDA. [DJS45] will
    provide a guaranty or payment and performance bonds
    to the benefit of CRDA by a credit worthy entity
    approved by CRDA for the completion of the Project
    in a lien free state.’’ While CRDA’s board of directors
    had approved the terms and conditions of the letter,
    ‘‘such approval [was] contingent on the approval of the
    State of Connecticut Bond Commission. In the event
    that such approval is [not] obtained or any time CRDA
    determines in its discretion that such approval is not
    likely to be obtained with a reasonable period of time,
    CRDA may terminate this proposal.’’ Finally, the letter
    informed DJS45 that, ‘‘[a]lthough not an exhaustive list,
    CRDA may request and [DJS45] shall provide the follow-
    ing: appraisals, title searches, covenants, insurance cer-
    tificates, plans and specifications, evidence of financ-
    ing, permits and approvals, contractor agreements,
    surveys, environmental clearance, final budget and final
    application.’’
    On June 21, 2013, the state of Connecticut bond com-
    mission (commission) voted to approve the allocation
    of up to $575,000 for the CRDA’s proposed loan to
    DJS45. On September 17, 2013, CRDA sent DJS45 a
    template of the formal assistance agreement identified
    in the letter. Section 3.9 of the assistance agreement,
    titled ‘‘Payment and Performance Bond,’’ provided that
    ‘‘[DJS45] shall provide CRDA with Payment and Perfor-
    mance Bonds with respect to each Contractor that
    enters into a Major Contract with [DJS45] . . . .’’ On
    December 4, 1993, CRDA sent DJS45 a ‘‘closing check-
    list’’ identifying various items that needed to be pro-
    vided. Item 33 included bonds from the general contrac-
    tor and the subcontractors.
    Although the plaintiffs now assert that the require-
    ment of performance and payment bonds, rather than
    simply a personal guarantee, was a material breach of
    the contract embodied in the letter, this claim is negated
    by communications between Freimuth and Squillante.
    On January 7, 2014, Freimuth wrote to Squillante in an
    e-mail that there were ‘‘a variety of issues outstanding.
    I have attached the closing check list for the project
    that was sent to your attorney in early December and
    little has been done to advance the items on the list. I
    hear that your contractor cannot get bonded which is
    a non-starter . . . .’’ The e-mail inquired about the tim-
    ing-out of an initial lender agreement and the lack of a
    fully executed commitment from the permanent lender.
    Freimuth indicated that they needed to consummate
    the deal because the ‘‘funds are now very ‘old’ and
    pressure is on to return them for other deals. If we do
    not bring this to conclusion in the next [forty-five to
    sixty] days, I will have little choice but to reallocate
    the funds.’’
    Squillante replied to CRDA on January 7, 2014, repre-
    senting that ‘‘[t]here are no issues with any of your
    concerns . . . . Also my contractor can get bonding,
    he was just looking not to incur the expense.’’ DJS45
    never obtained the performance or payment bonds. On
    July 25, 2014, the commission voted to reallocate the
    proposed funding for the project and CRDA revoked
    its approval of the application without prejudice. This
    action followed.
    On October 23, 2017, CRDA filed its motion for sum-
    mary judgment asserting that the letter was not a legally
    enforceable contract. Rather, in its view, the letter was
    an agreement to agree. Moreover, even if it was an
    enforceable agreement, the plaintiffs never performed
    because they never obtained permanent financing or
    provided performance bonds. CRDA asserts that it
    never made a clear and definite promise to the plaintiffs
    for a loan such that the second count asserting a promis-
    sory estoppel claim fails. Finally, the negligent misrep-
    resentation claim fails, in the view of CRDA, because
    it was commenced outside of the limitation period pro-
    vided by General Statutes § 52-584 and because CRDA
    did not make any misrepresentations.
    The plaintiffs object on the grounds that material
    questions of fact exist as to whether the letter was
    intended to be a binding contract, and whether there
    was any breach thereof by CRDA. The second count
    sounding in promissory estoppel survives summary
    judgment, in the estimation of the plaintiffs, because
    the letter provided for a personal guarantee ‘‘or’’ a pay-
    ment and performance bond. As to their negligent mis-
    representation claim, the plaintiffs observe that § 52-
    584 is inapplicable here, and the misrepresentation in
    the present case is that of providing financing if the
    plaintiffs provided a guarantee ‘‘or’’ payment and perfor-
    mance bond.
    LEGAL STANDARD
    The legal standard governing summary judgment
    motions is well settled. ‘‘Summary judgment is a method
    of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and
    any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine
    issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
    is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . . The
    motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate
    the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is
    no real issue to be tried . . . . However, since litigants
    ordinarily have a constitutional right to have issues of
    fact decided by a jury . . . the moving party for sum-
    mary judgment is held to a strict standard . . . of dem-
    onstrating his entitlement to summary judgment.’’ (Cita-
    tion omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation,
    
    306 Conn. 523
    , 534-35, 
    51 A.3d 367
     (2012). ‘‘Summary
    judgment may be granted where the claim is barred by
    the statute of limitations.’’ Doty v. Mucci, 
    238 Conn. 800
    , 806, 
    679 A.2d 945
     (1996).
    DISCUSSION
    With the governing legal standard in mind, the court
    now addresses the breach of contract, promissory
    estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims in
    turn.
    I
    COUNT ONE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
    The court finds that CRDA has established a lack of
    any genuine issue of material fact as to the absence of an
    enforceable agreement. Specifically, the letter provided
    merely the contours of a potential deal that might, when
    reduced to a subsequent writing, result in a binding
    contract. ‘‘The elements of a breach of contract claim
    are the formation of an agreement, performance by one
    party, breach of the agreement by the other party, and
    damages . . . . The interpretation of definitive con-
    tract language is a question of law . . . .’’ (Citation
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) CCT Com-
    munications, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 
    327 Conn. 114
    ,
    133, 
    172 A.3d 1228
     (2017). ‘‘A contract is not made so
    long as, in the contemplation of the parties, something
    remains to be done . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Santos v. Massad-Zion Motor Sales Co., 
    160 Conn. App. 12
    , 19, 
    123 A.3d 883
    , cert. denied, 
    319 Conn. 959
    , 
    125 A.3d 1013
     (2015); see 
    id.
     (lack of precise terms
    of confidentiality agreement to which parties agreed
    to integrate into settlement agreement, such as what
    information was protected, method of enforcement, and
    to whom settlement details could be disclosed, ren-
    dered settlement contract unenforceable). ‘‘So long as
    any essential matters are left open for further consider-
    ation, the contract is not complete.’’ (Internal quotation
    marks omitted.) L & R Realty v. Connecticut National
    Bank, 
    53 Conn. App. 524
    , 535, 
    732 A.2d 181
    , (citing 17A
    Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts § 32 (1991)), cert. denied, 
    250 Conn. 901
    , 
    734 A.2d 984
     (1999); see L & R Realty v.
    Connecticut National Bank, supra, 538 (agreement to
    subordinate loan which lacked terms and conditions
    was unenforceable). Where a writing is ‘‘no more than
    a statement of some of the essential features of a pro-
    posed contract and not a complete statement of all the
    essential terms,’’ which terms require further develop-
    ment in an executed written contract, no enforceable
    agreement exists. Westbrook v. Times-Star Co., 
    122 Conn. 473
    , 481, 
    191 A. 91
     (1937). ‘‘Whether the parties
    intended legally to bind themselves prior to the execu-
    tion of a formal contract is to be determined from (1)
    the language used, (2) the circumstances surrounding
    the transaction, and (3) the purpose that they sought
    to accomplish. . . . A consideration of these factors
    enables a court to determine if the informal contract
    . . . is enforceable or merely an intention to negotiate
    a contract in the future.’’ (Citation omitted.) Fowler v.
    Weiss, 
    15 Conn. App. 690
    , 693, 
    546 A.2d 321
    , cert. denied,
    
    209 Conn. 814
    , 
    550 A.2d 1082
     (1988).
    ‘‘Under established principles of contract law, an
    agreement must be definite and certain as to its terms
    and requirements.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    Perricone v. Perricone, 
    292 Conn. 187
    , 223, 
    972 A.2d 666
    (2009). ‘‘[N]umerous Connecticut cases require definite
    agreement on the essential terms’’ in order to render
    the agreement enforceable. Willow Funding Co., L.P.
    v. Grencom Associates, 
    63 Conn. App. 832
    , 845, 
    779 A.2d 174
     (2001). Whether a term is essential turns ‘‘on
    the particular circumstances of each case.’’ 
    Id.
     Clearly,
    an essential term is one without which a party would
    not have entered into an agreement. See, e.g., Hawley
    Avenue Associates, LLC v. Robert D. Russo, M.D. &
    Associates Radiology, P.C., 
    130 Conn. App. 823
    , 830-
    31, 
    25 A.3d 707
     (2011) (no enforceable lease/contract
    where no agreement on precise location and shape of
    parking area and party would not have signed lease
    because dimensions were integral part of decision to
    enter into agreement). In WiFiLand, LLP v. Hudson,
    
    153 Conn. App. 87
    , 107, 
    100 A.3d 450
     (2014), an alleged
    settlement agreement between an internet service pro-
    vider and its customers resolving a breach of contract
    action was held unenforceable where a confidentiality
    provision was an essential component of the agreement
    and the parties had failed to agree to the terms of the
    confidentiality provision. Similarly, a promise indicat-
    ing an intent to make a future employment contract,
    absent an agreement on the material terms of employ-
    ment, is not binding as a contract regardless of the
    promisor’s partial performance. Geary v. Wentworth
    Laboratories, Inc., 
    60 Conn. App. 622
    , 628, 
    760 A.2d 969
     (2000).
    In accordance with these principles, the court consid-
    ers the first Fowler factor and concludes that the letter
    was in the nature of an ‘‘agreement to agree,’’ rather
    than an enforceable contract, because essential terms
    had yet to be agreed upon. The letter was self-described
    as ‘‘a preliminary outline of general business terms
    of the potential project and are expressly subject to
    the completion of CRDA due diligence investigation
    including the provisions of necessary documents as
    outlined below and the securing of complete financing
    for the Project. This letter is not intended to create
    any legal liability for CRDA and is to serve as an
    explanation of assistance to be provided by CRDA.’’
    (Emphasis added.) By its very language, it identified
    itself as merely setting out the framework of a future
    contract, the formal assistance agreement, whose terms
    were yet to be agreed upon. These terms include the
    contents of the final development budget and the proj-
    ect application that were to be incorporated in the assis-
    tance agreement as well as the unidentified terms of
    the assistance agreement. Additionally, the letter con-
    templated final approval by CRDA of as yet undrafted
    ‘‘plans and specifications.’’ Finally, CRDA provided a
    nonexhaustive list of additional agreements, the terms
    of which were not specified, that the plaintiffs would
    be required to provide, including but not limited to
    ‘‘covenants’’ and ‘‘contractor agreements.’’ The disposi-
    tive case law compels the conclusion that these yet to
    be determined agreements and terms renders the letter
    unenforceable as an ‘‘agreement to agree.’’
    The plaintiffs suggest that Connecticut Parking Ser-
    vices, LLC v. Hartford Parking Authority, Superior
    Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-11-
    6018221-S (April 2, 2013), provides the court with an
    example of contract language that articulated an intent
    not to create a contractual obligation, which was ulti-
    mately found by the court to present questions of fact
    upon which summary judgment was denied. The reli-
    ance on this case is misplaced. In Connecticut Parking
    Services, LLC, language in a request for proposal that
    the parties would ‘‘enter into negotiations, which may
    ultimately lead to a contract’’ was raised by the defen-
    dant as an indication that the request for proposal was
    not an enforceable contract document. (Emphasis in
    original; internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    Id.
     The
    court denied summary judgment in favor of the defen-
    dant on the grounds that the language had to be consid-
    ered in the context of other language specifying that
    the terms in the request for proposal, in combination
    with other documents, represented the contract docu-
    ments. 
    Id.
     This case may be distinguished because a
    final agreement, to which the request for proposal was
    attached, was actually reached. In the present case it is
    undisputed that a formal assistance agreement between
    CRDA and DJS45 was never consummated.
    The court therefore grants summary judgment to
    CRDA on the first count of the complaint because the
    defendant has established the absence of material facts
    relative to the lack of essential terms, making the letter
    unenforceable.
    II
    COUNT TWO: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
    The defendant also claims entitlement to summary
    judgment on the second count, which asserts liability
    against the CRDA for promissory estoppel. ‘‘[U]nder
    the doctrine of promissory estoppel [a] promise which
    the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action
    or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third
    person and which does induce such action or forbear-
    ance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by
    enforcement of the promise. . . . A fundamental ele-
    ment of promissory estoppel, therefore, is the existence
    of a clear and definite promise which a promisor could
    reasonably have expected to induce reliance.’’ (Internal
    quotation marks omitted.) McClancy v. Bank of
    America, N.A., 
    176 Conn. App. 408
    , 415, 
    168 A.3d 658
    ,
    cert. denied, 
    327 Conn. 975
    , 
    174 A.3d 195
     (2017). ‘‘Under
    our [well established] law, any claim of estoppel is
    predicated on proof of two essential elements: the party
    against whom estoppel is claimed must do or say some-
    thing calculated or intended to induce another party to
    believe that certain facts exist and to act on that belief;
    and the other party must change its position in reliance
    on those facts, thereby incurring some injury. . . . It
    is fundamental that a person who claims an estoppel
    must show that he has exercised due diligence to know
    the truth, and that he not only did not know the true
    state of things but also lacked any reasonably available
    means of acquiring knowledge.’’ (Internal quotation
    marks omitted.) Chotkowski v. State, 
    240 Conn. 246
    ,
    268, 
    690 A.2d 368
     (1997).
    The promise which the plaintiffs seek to enforce is
    none other than the act of extending a loan in an amount
    in excess of $500,000. The letter, however, premised
    the financing on a number of contingencies which, in
    the aggregate, rendered the promise to loan $500,000
    or more tentative, rather than definite. These included
    CRDA’s due diligence investigation, agreement of the
    terms, execution of a formal assistance agreement, the
    plaintiffs’ obtaining permanent financing, and the exe-
    cution of other unspecified documents. Simply put,
    there was no definite promise to loan the plaintiffs over
    $500,000, and, accordingly, summary judgment as to
    this claim is appropriate.
    The plaintiffs assert that the promise upon which
    they relied was for the extension of the loan upon the
    provision of either a guarantee or a payment and perfor-
    mance bond. In the plaintiffs’ view, the later insistence
    by CRDA on an onerous payment and performance
    bond for each of [their] contractors from an insurance
    company with a Best Rating of A- VII or, alternatively,
    that each of the plaintiffs’ contractors provide the same
    is different from what was indicated in the letter, which
    provided for a guarantee preferred by the plaintiffs ‘‘or’’
    a performance and payment bond, works an injustice
    and caused them injury.3 This ignores that this was only
    one of many contingencies that were required to be
    met before a loan was made. Moreover, the letter
    employed the disjunctive ‘‘or’’ between the two possibil-
    ities of the provision of a guarantee and a payment and
    performance bond without articulating which of the
    parties were permitted to elect the manner in which
    CRDA would be assured of the completion of the project
    in a lien free state. There is nothing in the record before
    the court which demonstrates that the plaintiffs exer-
    cised any diligence to determine the truth of which or
    lacked any reasonably available means of acquiring this
    knowledge. See Chotkowski v. State, 
    supra,
     
    240 Conn. 268
    . Summary judgment is therefore granted as to the
    second count.
    III
    COUNT THREE: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
    The last theory of liability upon which summary judg-
    ment is sought is that contained in the third count of
    negligent misrepresentation. The elements of an action
    for negligent misrepresentation are ‘‘(1) that the defen-
    dant made a misrepresentation of fact (2) that the defen-
    dant knew or should have known was false, and (3) that
    the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentation,
    and (4) suffered pecuniary harm as a result.’’ (Internal
    quotation marks omitted.) Coppola Construction Co.
    v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 
    309 Conn. 342
    , 351-52, 
    71 A.3d 480
     (2013).
    CRDA asserts that the plaintiffs’ action is barred by
    the statute of limitations. The following additional infor-
    mation is required [for a] discussion of this argument.
    The CRDA’s motion for summary judgment was filed
    on October 23, 2017, and raised the bar of the statute
    of limitations. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
    a request for leave to amend the complaint pursuant
    to Practice Book § 10-60(a) (3) and alleged that the
    plaintiffs would be required to obtain payment and per-
    formance bonds for each of [their] contractors from an
    insurance company licensed to do business in Connecti-
    cut with a ‘‘ ‘Best Rating of A- VII’ ’’ or, in the alternative,
    each of the plaintiffs’ contract[or]s would be required
    to obtain similar bonding. The defendant is alleged to
    have failed to provide the plaintiffs with the necessary
    information in a commercially reasonable time, includ-
    ing form agreements and closing checklist when it had
    a duty to disclose the material facts within a commer-
    cially reasonable time after the plaintiffs’ receipt of
    the letter. Thereafter, on March 5, 2018, the plaintiffs
    amended their first special defense to . . . allege that
    the applicable statute of limitations is tolled by the
    course of conduct doctrine.
    In the plaintiffs’ view, the applicable statute is § 52-
    584, which applies to negligence actions seeking dam-
    ages for injury to the person or real or personal prop-
    erty.4 Section 52-584 contains both a discovery and
    repose limitation wherein applicable actions are barred
    two years from the date of discovery of injury but in
    no event more than three years from the act or omission
    complained of. The [defendant] claim[s], and the court
    agrees, that, to the contrary, the applicable statute of
    limitations is that of General Statutes § 52-577, which
    provides that: ‘‘[n]o action founded upon a tort shall
    be brought but within three years from the date of the
    act or omission complained of.’’
    The court is mindful that, in Lombard v. Edward J.
    Peters, Jr., P.C., 
    79 Conn. App. 290
    , 
    830 A.2d 346
     (2003),
    the Appellate Court held that a claim of negligent mis-
    representation was subject to the limitations contained
    in § 52-584. The dispositive issue for the Lombard court,
    however, was that the ‘‘plaintiffs’ claim is predicated
    on injury to their personal property caused by negli-
    gence . . . .’’ Id., 299. In the present case, however,
    the plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim asserts
    economic loss rather than injury to person, real prop-
    erty or personal property.
    This court aligns itself with that body of case law
    that holds that the dispositive issue relative to which
    of the two statutes applies is the nature of the injury
    claimed. See, e.g., Teal Associates, LLC v. Alfin, Supe-
    rior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litiga-
    tion Docket, Docket No. X04-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (Septem-
    ber 5, 2014) (§ 52-584 applies only to actions to recover
    damages for injury to person or property); Evans v.
    Province, Docket No. CV-07-600855, 
    2008 WL 3916445
    (Conn. Super. August 4, 2008) (Lombard’s holding is
    limited to claims of negligent misrepresentation that
    allege injuries to either person or property). The appli-
    cable limitation period is thus the three year period
    contained in § 52-577.
    Section 52-577 is an occurrence statute which runs
    from the date of the defendant’s conduct, not the date
    that the plaintiff first discovered the injury. See Watts
    v. Chittenden, 
    301 Conn. 575
    , 583, 
    22 A.3d 1214
     (2011).
    The date of the defendant’s conduct is May 10, 2013,
    the date of issue of the letter. According to the return
    of service contained in the court’s file the action was
    commenced on July 26, 2016.5 The commencement of
    the action was thus more than three years from the act
    complained of, to wit, the misrepresentations contained
    in the letter.
    The plaintiffs, however, assert that the limitation
    period is tolled by the continuing conduct doctrine as
    alleged in their special defense. Moreover, the plaintiffs
    remark that ‘‘the defendant, which of course has the
    burden of proving the absence of any issue of material
    fact, completely fails to address the continuing course
    of conduct doctrine, and accordingly summary judg-
    ment should be denied.’’ Entry No. 147, p. 3. The plain-
    tiffs, who presumably relied on the CRDA’s lack of
    argument as to the continuing course of conduct doc-
    trine, themselves provided no analysis of why the limita-
    tions should be extended by the doctrine.
    The plaintiffs misapprehend the nature of the shifting
    burden attendant to the tolling of [a] statute of limita-
    tions. ‘‘Typically, in the context of a motion for summary
    judgment based on a statute of limitations special
    defense, a defendant . . . meets its initial burden of
    showing the absence of a genuine issue of material
    fact by demonstrating that the action had commenced
    outside of the statutory limitation period. . . . Then,
    if the plaintiff claims the benefit of a provision that
    operates to extend the limitation period, the burden
    . . . shifts to the plaintiff to establish a disputed issue
    of material fact in avoidance of the statute. . . . In
    these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the party
    opposing summary judgment to establish a factual pred-
    icate from which it can be determined, as a matter of
    law, that a genuine issue of material fact [as to the
    timeliness of the action] exists.’’ (Citations omitted;
    internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. West Hart-
    ford, 
    328 Conn. 172
    , 192, 
    177 A.3d 1128
     (2018). Thus,
    the burden to rebut the statutory limitations bar shifts
    to the plaintiff to demonstrate an issue of fact. This
    they have declined to do. Although the court need not
    consider an argument neither argued nor briefed; see
    Hoenig v. Lubetkin, 
    137 Conn. 516
    , 524, 
    79 A.2d 278
    (1951); it will address the assertion of tolling by the
    continuing conduct doctrine.
    In evaluating the continuing course of conduct doc-
    trine in the context of a summary judgment motion the
    court must determine whether there is a genuine issue
    of material fact with respect to whether ‘‘the defendant:
    (1) committed an initial wrong upon the plaintiff; (2)
    owed a continuing duty to the plaintiff that was related
    to the alleged original wrong; and (3) continually
    breached that duty.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
    ted.) Flannery v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC, 
    312 Conn. 286
    , 313, 
    94 A.3d 553
     (2014), citing Witt v. St.
    Vincent’s Medical Center, 
    252 Conn. 363
    , 370, 
    746 A.2d 753
     (2000). As the plaintiffs assiduously point out in
    their briefing, the nature of the third count is a claim
    for negligent misrepresentation. See Entry No. 147, p.
    5. The court notes that a violation of a duty to disclose
    is not asserted. Moreover, the plaintiffs provide no
    authority for the proposition that an actor, having made
    a negligent misrepresentation, has a continuing duty to
    correct the misrepresentation. There is, for example,
    no claim of the existence of a special relationship
    between the plaintiffs and the CRDA such that a fidu-
    ciary duty existed. Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 
    274 Conn. 33
    , 86, 
    873 A.2d 929
     (2005). Moreover, the plaintiffs
    have not directed the court’s attention to any conduct
    that constituted a continual breach of a duty to make
    accurate representations of fact—such as repetition
    over time of the misrepresentation. See Teal Associates,
    LLC v. Alfin, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. X04-
    CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (series of misrepresentations tolled
    statute of limitations). The court concludes that no gen-
    uine issue of material fact exists with respect to the
    bar of the limitations imposed by § 52-577 and grants
    summary judgment as to the third count.
    IV
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons summary judgment is
    granted in favor of the defendant, CRDA, on all three
    counts of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
    * Affirmed.       Conn. App.     ,     A.3d      (2021).
    1
    See General Statutes § 32-600 et seq.
    2
    The letter provided that ‘‘CRDA assistance is contingent on the Sponsor
    successfully securing permanent financing from other sources [in the
    amount of $1,055,000] to reduce the CRDA construction loan assistance
    and to fully fund the Project’s costs.’’ It also contemplated the award of a
    Connecticut Historic Tax credit in the amount of $195,131.
    3
    The plaintiffs’ November 14, 2017 amended complaint added the hereto-
    fore not included allegations that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiffs
    with necessary information in a commercially reasonable time including
    the form agreements until September, 2013, and the closing checklist until
    December, 2013, including the additional condition of the type of bonding
    required. These new allegations implicate only the manner in which CRDA’s
    later conduct deviated from the original promise sought to be enforced and
    do not affect the analysis herein.
    4
    General Statutes § 52-584 provides: ‘‘No action to recover damages for
    injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence,
    or by reckless or wanton misconduct, or by malpractice of a physician,
    surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor, hospital or sanatorium, shall be
    brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained
    or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discov-
    ered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years
    from the date of the act or omission complained of . . . .’’
    5
    An action is commenced when the writ of process is served on the
    defendant. Rocco v. Garrison, 
    268 Conn. 541
    , 549, 
    848 A.2d 352
     (2004).
    Courts may take judicial notice of the contents of their files. In re Jeisean
    M., 
    270 Conn. 382
    , 402, 
    852 A.2d 643
     (2004).