DocketNumber: No. CV95-0075021-S
Citation Numbers: 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8798
Judges: HODGSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/30/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The movants take the position that the counts against them are barred by the applicable statute of limitation and by principles of governmental immunity in general and as redefined in Conn. Gen. Stat. §
The plaintiff claims as part of the tenth court that the defendant Town of Westbrook is obligated to indemnify Henry A. Giuca for the claims asserted in this action.
In the eleventh count, the plaintiff alleges that the same actions by Giuca are actionable as a civil conspiracy.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is to be rendered if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show there is no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 384. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine dispute as to any material fact PeerlessInsurance Co. v. Gonzalez,
Summary judgment is appropriate to determine legal issues such as the scope of a contract or the application of a legal bar to suit where no facts material to the applicability of such provisions are in dispute. Peerless Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez,
A party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its claim that there is a genuine issue of material fact and set forth evidence of the facts claimed to be in dispute. Practice Book § 381; Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.,
MUNICIPAL IMMUNITY DEFENSE
The movants have identified two sources of a bar to liability: common law immunity for persons performing discretionary functions on behalf of a governmental entity and the statutory bar of §
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Mr. Giuca performed his inspection on the foundation and on the completed home in his capacity as town building inspector. (Tenth Count, paragraph
The plaintiffs have not alleged that defendant Giuca acted with malice, wantonness or intent to injure.
A municipal employee has qualified immunity for the performance of discretionary acts and may be held liable only if he acts maliciously, wantonly or intentionally. Evon v. Andrews,
The plaintiff argues that summary judgment is inappropriate when issues of intent are involved. See Suarez v. DickmontPlastics Corp.,
The motion for summary judgment must be adjudicated on the basis of the cause of action actually alleged in the complaint, not on the basis of a different claim that has not been pleaded. The plaintiff has alleged only negligent or reckless conduct by the building inspector. The issue before this court, therefore, is whether the doctrine of governmental immunity bars that claim.
While it is a ministerial act for a municipal inspector to show up to inspect premises where a statute or ordinance specifies that an inspection be performed, the manner and extent of the inspection and the conclusions reached as to approving or rejecting the thing inspected involved the exercise of the official's judgment. Evon v. Andrews,
More recently, in Beach v. Regional School District No. 13,
An exception exists where the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. See,e.g., Evon v. Andrews,
Observations and the drawing of conclusions concerning the soundness of construction require judgment and are discretionary, not ministerial, functions of a building inspector. In opposing summary judgment, the plaintiff has submitted no facts that would support a finding that review of the footings was ministerial, involving automatic, nonjudgmental functions.
The plaintiff has argued that the situation resembles that presented in Wright v. Brown,
Since the plaintiff has alleged only degrees of negligence in performing inspections and issuing approvals, not intentional or malicious malfeasance, her claims in the tenth count are barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.
CONSPIRACY
In the eleventh count of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the actions of defendants Giuca and the Town of Westbrook described in the preceding counts constitute a civil conspiracy to conceal facts concerning the soil from the plaintiff, to induce her to purchase the lot and to enter into a contract to build a house and pay the contract sum. The sole actions that defendant Giuca is alleged to have engaged in are those set forth in the tenth count. Since those acts do not give rise to liability because of the doctrine of governmental immunity, the same acts do not become actionable because they are characterized as part of a conspiracy. It must be noted that in the eleventh count the plaintiff likewise has not alleged that defendant Giuca acted intentionally or maliciously in derogation of his duty in approving the foundation or issuing a certificate of occupancy.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
The movants have asserted as an additional ground for summary judgment the defense that the claim against them is barred by the statute of limitation. They have not, however, established the date on which the plaintiff knew of the presence of organic silt under the foundation, the event that would likely constitute the date of discovery of actionable harm, See Lambert v. Stovall,
A letter from the plaintiff's son to defendant Cox indicates CT Page 8803 knowledge of the presence of organic material and inappropriate soil at an unspecified time before the date of that letter, August 26, 1994. The motion for leave to cite in Henry Giuca was filed on August 23, 1996, and it arguably relates back to a prior mistaken citing in of the "estate of Henry Giuca" in October 1995.
The movants have not established facts on which a conclusion could be based that suit was not commenced within two years of discovery of the actionable harm, since the date of discovery of the condition of the soil could have been August 25, 1994, the day before Peter Lewis' letter.
Since the movants have not shown what the crucial facts are as to the statute of limitation defense as they formulate it, they have not demonstrated that they are entitled to summary judgment on this ground as well as on the ground of governmental immunity.
CONCLUSION
The motion of Henry Giuca and the Town of Westbrook for summary judgment as to counts ten and eleven of the fourth amended complaint is granted for foregoing reasons.
BEVERLY J. HODGSON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT