Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

PARAGON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ET AL. (AC 32073)
Robinson, Bear and Flynn, Js. Argued April 11--officially released July 19, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Peck, J.)

Lawrence Russ, assistant attorney general, with whom were Drew S. Graham, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellants (defendants). Neal L. Moskow, with whom, on the brief, were Deborah M. Garskof and Stephanie Dellolio, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

ROBINSON, J. The defendants, the department of public works and the department of correction, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss part of the action of the plaintiff, Paragon Construction Company, which was based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion to dismiss.1 We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. The department of correction is the administrator of the Cheshire Correctional Center, and both the department of public works and the department of correction let out for bid and administered a project for renovation of the Cheshire Correctional Center. In July, 1999, the plaintiff entered into a public works contract with the department of public works pursuant to which the plaintiff was to act as the general contractor on the construction project at the Cheshire Correctional Center. Pursuant to the contract, the plaintiff agreed to provide services and materials for the construction project in return for the defendants' payment of the contract amount. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into a subcontract with MacKenzie Painting Company (MacKenzie) pursuant to which MacKenzie agreed to ``de-lead'' and paint certain security bars on windows at the Cheshire Correctional Center. After substantial completion of the construction project, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants over payment for additional required work and delays. On December 2, 2005, the plaintiff filed a two count complaint against the defendants seeking to collect sums allegedly due for additional required work and delays. The first count alleged a claim of breach of contract, while the second count alleged a claim of unjust enrichment. Specifically, as to the first count, the plaintiff alleged breach of contract on two different grounds, the first being based on the allegation that the plaintiff was owed $178,312 for the ``de-leading'' of security bars on windows, as set forth in paragraph seven of count one of the complaint,2 and the second being based on the allegation that the defendants caused construction delays and required additional work that damaged the plaintiff to the extent of $293,023.60, as set forth in paragraph eight of count one of the complaint.3 The defendants did not seek to dismiss the portion of the breach of contract claim that alleged breach by construction delays and additional required work. In the second count, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of their failure to pay the plaintiff for the ``de-leading'' of the security bars and for the delays and other additional work they had required, which caused the defendants to realize an unjust economic benefit of $471,335.60.4

On January 17, 2006, pursuant to Practice Book

Download Paragon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works.pdf

Connecticut Law