Opinion
HHDCV136046891S
08-02-2016
Valley Floor Service, LLC dba Valley Floor Covering v. Aecon, Inc
August 3, 2016, Filed
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO FACTFINDER'S REPORT
Robaina C. Antonio, J.
The defendant in the above captioned matter has filed an objection to the factfinder's report, which report is dated August 31, 2015. The report finds that this lawsuit originates from an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for the installation of subflooring at the defendant's property in Naugatuck, Connecticut. A dispute arose after the installation of the subflooring which was alleged to have been done improperly, and was alleged to have affected the structural integrity of the floor. The court will discuss further details as necessary.
The defendant has objected to the factfinder's report on several grounds. The defendant objects to the factfinder's conclusion that " the cost of encapsulating the ceiling of the production facility was not clear from the evidence presented at the hearings . . ." The defendant claims that the cost was articulated. In reviewing the portion of the transcript provided, the factfinder is presumably referring to the testimony of a witness named Jason Mitchell, who testified that the cost of the repair was " $957.15 for the trim, and it was $6, 381 for the epoxy coating underneath."
The court finds that the facts as articulated by the factfinder are not incorrect. As previously stated, the factfinder found that the cost of encapsulating the ceiling was not clear. It is not unreasonable to think that he was referring to the fact that the information provided by the witness included several items in addition to the encapsulation of the ceiling. The transcript reveals that Mr. Mitchell states that " they painted everything, the ceiling and the floor, sub floor, whatever it was, underneath." He then offers a price for the trim and a separate price for the epoxy coating. Taken in context, the factfinder's entire statement was as follows: " [a]lthough the cost of encapsulating the ceiling of the production facility was not clear from the evidence presented at the hearings, it is reasonable to conclude that it would cost as much as the original contract price remedy the plaintiff's negligence." The court finds that the factfinder had sufficient evidence to arrive at the conclusion that was reached, and the court further finds that the conclusion was reasonable.
The defendant further objects to the factfinder's report because it does not acknowledge that the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the damages caused by its negligent installation; because of the finding that it was not proven that the door and frame reinstallation was required to rectify the plaintiff's negligence; and the finding that the owner of the property may have wanted to upgrade the mezzanine as opposed to repairing the damages caused by the improper installation.
In this regard, the factfinder found that the plaintiff was informed that the staples used in the installation had penetrated the floor of the mezzanine, which was the ceiling of the production area. The factfinder found that an engineer hired by the owner of the building had concluded in January of 2013 that the mezzanine needed to be replaced and the ceiling needed to be sprayed with an epoxy sealant. However, the factfinder also found that the engineer's opinion was not shared with the plaintiff until approximately 15 months after. While that conclusion is at odds with the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow that the conclusion is erroneous. A review of the factfinder's decision shows that his conclusion as to the adequacy of the opportunity provided the plaintiff to remedy the installation was based on several factors. The factfinder states that " defendant did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the damages that it had created until 15 months after the initial installation and then the only option was to pay the $26, 988 or do the work in accordance with the proposal by Northeast. In addition, the project that was undertaken by the owner of the facility to remedy the situation involved removing doors and frames and reinstalling them after renal floor was installed on top of the existing floors. It is not clear from the evidence that this was required in order to remedy the plaintiff's negligence and may have been the owner's desire to upgrade the mezzanine space. Defendant also admitted that it did not challenge the owner's refusal to pay for the work done by plaintiff and its decision to withhold payment from the defendant in the amount of the rework because it expected further contracts with the owner and did not want to jeopardize their relationship." From the foregoing, it is evident that the factfinder considered a number of factors arriving at the conclusions that were contained in his report. The conclusions in this regard are not clearly erroneous.
The defendant claims that the factfinder failed to decide the breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. This is contraindicated by of the factfinder's report where he states specifically that there is a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. With respect to the defendant's claim as to the curtailment of evidence from a particular witness, the court finds that argument unpersuasive. It is neither unusual or unreasonable for a factfinder to discourage counsel from the duplication of evidence, and to make proceedings as efficient as possible. The defendant's argument that the factfinder was seeking to prematurely finish the evidence is a conclusion that is not supported by the record provided.
A factfinder's recommendation should be accepted when " there is nothing that is unreasonable, illogical or clearly erroneous in the finding of the factfinder and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc., 20 Conn.App. 420, 425, 567 A.2d 1250 (1989), cert. denied, 214 Conn. 804, 573 A.2d 318 (1990).
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's objections to the factfinder's report are overruled. The court will enter a separate order entering judgment as per the report.