DocketNumber: No. CV010074671S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10892
Judges: SCHOLL, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/10/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
HRH/Atlas is a general contractor and the plaintiff was its steel subcontractor on a project involving the construction of a building on the campus of the University of Connecticut. During the project certain disputes arose between the parties and this litigation resulted.
The standard of review when considering a motion to strike is well settled; the court must take as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint and must construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. Dollard v. Board of Education,
As to Count Four: "`Every contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. . . . Essentially it is a rule of construction designed to fulfill the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties as they presumably intended. . . . Conversely, [b]ad faith means more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose.' . . . MiddletownCommercial Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Middletown, CT Page 10893
Count Four of the Revised Complaint alleges that HRH breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by providing United Steel with "inaccurate and inadequate" information (Paragraph 43(a)); by "failing or refusing . . . to implement an adequate and efficient approval process for requests for information (Paragraph 43(b)); by "failing and refusing to respond to United Steel's requests for information in a timely and adequate fashion" (Paragraph 43(c)); by permitting the project's architects and engineer to respond "with misleading and inaccurate information" to their requests for information (Paragraph 43(d)and (e)); "by misrepresenting to United Steel that certain materials [and services] were contemplated by the Subcontract in an effort to avoid paying United Steel for materials beyond the scope of the Subcontract" (Paragraph 43(f) and (g)); and by "failing or refusing to adequately supervise and manage the Project" (Paragraph 43(i)). To "mislead" means "to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit", Meriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. Similarly, to "misrepresent" means "to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair." Id. Therefore viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, they are sufficient to support a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In Count Six of the Revised Complaint, the plaintiff realleges the allegations in support of its claims for breach of the subcontract with HRH, negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation, and claims that these actions are deceptive and misleading in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, "CUTPA", Conn. Gen. Stat. §
"In determining whether a case falls within the scope of CUTPA's general description of unfair or deceptive practices, our courts have adopted the `cigarette rule' set forth in FTC v. Sperry HutchinsonCo.,
The plaintiff's Revised Complaint meets the standards set forth above. It claims that the defendant engaged in conduct which was designed to misrepresent, mislead, and obstruct the plaintiff in the carrying out of its obligations pursuant to a contract concerning the construction of a public building. For example, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached its duty to ensure that the project's architects and engineers performed their duties in accordance with professional standards and that the plaintiff's architects and engineers provided it with misleading and inaccurate information. Such actions offend the public policy that a subcontractor on a public works contract must be able to carry out its obligations according to the terms of the contract in order to ensure the public safety. As alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant's actions have also resulted in its substantial injury. Thus the allegations of the Revised Complaint are sufficient to state a CUTPA claim. CT Page 10895
The Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied.
Scholl, J.