Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington

343 Conn. 88

272 A.3d 655 (Mem)

David CROUZET

v.FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF STONINGTON et al.

SC 20545

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 17, 2022

Officially released April 26, 2022

Proloy K. Das, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, were Benjamin H. Nissim, Leonard M. Isaac, Waterbury, and James J. Nugent, Orange, for the appellants (defendants).

Eric J. Garofano, with whom was Thomas J. Londregan and, on the brief, Ralph J. Monaco, New London, for the plaintiff (appellee).

Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, David Crouzet, brought this action against the defendants, First Baptist Church of Stonington and Second Congregational Church of Stonington, alleging that fuel oil had leaked from an underground storage tank that previously had been located on the defendants’ property onto the plaintiff's property, thereby contaminating it. The case was tried to the court, which concluded that a "secondary source" for the oil contamination existed on the plaintiff's property and, therefore, that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court's finding that there was a secondary source for the oil contamination was clearly erroneous and that, even if that finding was supported by the evidence, that would not mean that the plaintiff failed to prove that the oil tank on the defendants’ property was the primary source of the contamination. Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington , 199 Conn. App. 532, 553–54, 239 A.3d 321 (2020). The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. Id., at 555, 559–60, 562, 239 A.3d 321. We then granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court, on the record in this case, properly reverse the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants on the grounds that (1) the trial court committed clear error in finding that a secondary source was responsible for the contamination of the plaintiff's property, and (2) even if there had been a secondary source of contamination, the presence of that secondary source does not mean that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants’ oil tank contaminated [the] property?" Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington , 335 Conn. 979, 241 A.3d 703 (2020). We conclude that certification was improvidently granted and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The factual background and procedural history of this case are aptly set forth in the Appellate Court's opinion, and there is no need to repeat them in detail here. See Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington , supra, 199 Conn. App. at 534–53, 239 A.3d 321. It suffices to state that the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, alleging that an underground oil storage tank that previously had been located on property owned by the defendants at 48 Trumbull Avenue in...