J.D.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. Sarjac Partners, LLC

J.D.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. Sarjac Partners, LLC

No. HHDCV146048285

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

July 13, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Nina F. Elgo, J.

The plaintiff, J.D.C. Enterprises, Inc. (JDC), brought this lawsuit against the defendant, Sarjac Partners, LLC (Sarjac) alleging breach of contract, quantum merit, and unjust enrichment. JDC provided remediation services following significant flooding in the interior basement of Sarjac's property on 36 LaSalle Road in West Hartford (property). Because Sarjac has failed to pay for these services, JDC seeks damages in the amount of $169, 414.34.

Following its receipt of evidence in a trial before this court on December 7 and December 8, 2016 and trial briefs filed by the parties, this court outlines the procedural history of the case and finds the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.

This action commenced on January 21, 2014, when JDC filed its complaint against Sarjac. On March 19, 2014, Sarjac filed a motion to cite an additional party, the Town of West Hartford (town), as a third-party defendant, which the court (Robaina J.) granted. Sarjac then filed a third-party complaint on April 21, 2014. On September 30, 2014, Sarjac filed an amended third-party complaint, which consisted of six counts sounding in common-law negligence. The town moved to strike that complaint in its entirety, claiming that its allegations were legally insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted because the town enjoys governmental immunity against common-law negligence claims unless such immunity has been abrogated by statute. The trial court (Rittenband, J.) agreed with the town and granted the motion to strike the third-party complaint on November 10 2014.^[1] Our Appellate Court thereafter affirmed the propriety of that decision. J.D.C Enterprises, Inc. v. Sarjac Partners, LLC, 164 Conn.App. 508, 517, 137 A.3d 894, 900, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 913, 136 A.3d 1274 (2016). More than sixteen months after the trial court struck the third-party complaint, JDC filed a request to amend its complaint to add various counts against the town, which the court (Huddleston, J.) denied.

On the first day of trial, December 7, 2016, this court heard argument on and sustained the objection to Sarjac's request to amend its answer and add special defenses, filed on November 30, 2016, including accord and satisfaction, failure to mitigate damages and other claims made by Sarjac relating to JDC's actions/inactions relative to the town's alleged liability and/or responsibility for the flooding which occurred on its property. Notwithstanding the dispute as to the circumstances around said payment that was the subject of the accord and satisfaction defense, the court noted the stipulation of the parties that, to the extent that Sarjac paid $35, 000 to JDC on December 31, 2015, that payment would operate as a setoff to any judgment, if any, that would enter in favor of JDC.

JDC is a business which performs site development, improvement and demolition services as well as repairs, including emergency services, to underground utilities and water and sewer systems. When called for emergency services work, JDC operates under oral agreements.

On June 12, 2013, Sarjac contacted JDC to procure its services to respond to and remediate emergency flooding in the basement of Sarjac's property. The work involved three to four JDC employees onsite for a period of nearly seven weeks. Due to Sarjac's dispute with the town over its alleged responsibility for the flooding, Sarjac failed to pay JDC for services rendered. As a result, JDC borrowed over $100, 000 to pay its own bills and meet payroll.

Charlton Carey, the onsite supervisor from JDC, credibly testified that the amount of water was so significant that JDC spent the first two days investigating its source. In addition, because there was a significant amount of rain during that initial week, JDC repeatedly pumped water out of the basement, only to find it flooded again following heavy rain. The water was so excessive that JDC employees described it as " gushing" at an uncontrollable rate through every crack and weak point in the concrete floor, so much so that it actually blew off a metal sump cover that weighed about forty pounds. They also found that the motors from the sump pumps which they had just installed were burned out because they were partially buried in sand and silt.

While investigating the source of the water, one JDC employee fell through the paved sidewalk in front of the property and into a sinkhole whose dimensions were eight to ten feet in length and width and ten feet deep. The sinkhole was so large that the interlocking design of the pavers alone maintained the integrity of the sidewalk over the gap until the JDC employee fell into the sinkhole. Suspecting that there was a relationship between the sinkhole and the flooding, JDC received permission from town officials to explore the cavity. JDC subsequently discovered a broken storm drain through which it passed a camera north toward Farmington Avenue. While the camera explored the drain, JDC employees observed water discharging from lateral pipes. At that time, they realized that the storm drain was active, and not abandoned as the town had believed. Moreover, they discovered that the discharged water, either released by sump pumps working from other commercial properties and/or from surface water flowing into catch basins, was draining back into Sarjac's property through the broken pipe. As a result, JDC secured permission from the town to fix the pipe. They also filled in the cavity, compacted the area, and leveled the ground to ensure that it was safe for pedestrians. The process of fixing the pipe, filling the cavity, and leveling the ground involved fifteen hours of work and $6, 950.00 in labor costs.

The majority of the work performed by JDC over the course of several weeks pertained to its efforts to make operational the interior footing drainage system, which ultimately was replaced because it was so impacted with silt. In order to get access to the interior drainage system, JDC needed to jack-hammer the concrete floor of the property's basement, which they eventually had to replace as well. Using two five-gallon buckets per worker, JDC employees carried materials by hand, including silt, 3/4" stone and the processed aggregate used to rebuild the interior drainage system. During this process, JDC also discovered a five-foot " void" or " cavern" which reached underneath the building foundation and operated as an " underground river, " the pressure from which explained how uncontrolled amounts of water, stone and silt would enter into the building and through the floor. Because the workers had to hand-carry the buckets, balancing them while climbing up and down stairs from the basement of the building, the process was, as Carey described, extremely labor intensive, " brutal" work that took weeks to complete.

The court also notes that the erosion resulting from the broken drain pipe resulted in eighteen yards of material being removed and disposed of. The remediation work included the addition of eighteen yards of material to fill the cavity created underneath the sidewalk.

The parties do not dispute there was no written contract for the services performed by JDC. Sarjac, however, admitted that when JDC was called in to help extract water and to locate and isolate the problem, it effectively allowed JDC to work on a time and materials basis because the parties " had worked together previously." Based on the joint stipulation filed by the parties, the court also finds that Sarjac does not dispute that JDC performed its work satisfactorily and that Sarjac benefitted from that work.

DISCUSSION

JDC asserts three causes of action: in count one, breach of contract; count two, quantum meruit; and count three, unjust enrichment.

" The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bross v. Hillside Acres Inc., 92 Conn.App. 773, 780, 887 A.2d 420 (2006); see also Chiulli v. Zola, 97 Conn.App. 699, 706-07, 905 A.2d 1236 (2006) (same). The elements of a breach of contract claim must be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. See Waicunas v. Macari, 151 Conn. 134, 137, 193 A.2d 709 (1963); see also Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn.App. 462, 471, 823 A.2d 438 (2003); Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn.App. 119, 131-32, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001).

The rules governing contract formation are well settled. " To form a valid and binding contract in Connecticut, there must be a mutual understanding of the terms that arc definite and certain between the parties . . . To constitute an offer and acceptance sufficient to create an enforceable contract each must be found to have been based on an identical understanding by the parties . . . If the minds of the parties have not truly met, no enforceable contract exists . . . [A]n agreement must be definite and certain as to its terms and requirements . . . So long as any essential matters are left open for further consideration, the contract is not complete." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) L& R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn.App. 524, 534-35, 732 A.2d 181, cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901, 734 A.2d 984 (1999). A contract requires clear and definite terms. See Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Society for Savings, 243 Conn. 832, 843, 708 A.2d 1361 (1998). A court may, however, enforce an agreement " if the...