DocketNumber: No. CV 94318532S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6993, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 329
Judges: MAIOCCO, J.
Filed Date: 6/14/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Count one alleges that MPH Plumbing has not paid the plaintiff for its services. Count two alleges that Prete has not paid the plaintiff for its services. Count three alleges that Aetna is liable to the plaintiff pursuant to General Statutes §
On February 10, 1995, Prete and Aetna, filed three revised special defenses. In their first special defense, Prete and Aetna claim that Prete has paid all amounts that the plaintiff claims is owing to MPH Plumbing, Prete's subcontractor. The second and third special defenses are not in issue. CT Page 6994
On February 21, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike Prete's first special defense (#122) and a memorandum in support of the motion to strike. On that day, the plaintiff also filed a motion to strike Aetna's first special defense (#124) and a memorandum in support of the motion to strike.1 Neither Prete nor Aetna has responded to the motions to strike.
"`Whenever any party wishes to contest . . . (5) the legal sufficiency of any answer to any complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any part of that answer including any special defense contained therein, that party may do so by filing a motion to strike the contested pleading or part thereof.'" Bouchard v.People's Bank,
"In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the [pleading]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.,
In its memoranda in support of the motion to strike, the plaintiff argues that a defense of good faith payments does not apply to actions brought under General Statutes §
As a subcontractor to a subcontractor, the plaintiff has brought this action under General Statutes §
"Because `[t]he statutory requirement of a bond is designed to protect and benefit those who furnish materials and labor to the contractor on public work, in that they may be sure of payment of their just claims, without defeat or undue delay such statutory provisions are to be liberally construed.'" OkeeIndustries v. National Grange Mutual Ins.,
It follows therefore, that Prete, a general contractor, would not be entitled to allege a payment to MPH Plumbing, a subcontractor, as a special defense to the claim of KMK Insulation, Inc. The policy around the bond statute as announced in OkeeIndustries directs the court not to curtail the right of subcontractors to recover from the entity that posts a bond.
Accordingly, the motion to strike `Prete's first special defense (#122) is granted and the motion to strike Aetna's first special defense (#124) is also granted.
MAIOCCO, JUDGE