Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a bank and a homeowner over a foreclosure action. The bank sought to foreclose on a mortgage after the homeowner defaulted on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. The mortgage agreement included a provision authorizing the bank to purchase force placed insurance coverage for the property if the homeowner failed to maintain adequate coverage. The homeowner alleged that the bank was involved in an undisclosed kickback scheme with an insurance provider, which led to him being charged more than the cost of purchasing the force placed coverage, contrary to the provisions of the mortgage agreement and certain representations the bank had made to him. The bank filed a motion to strike the special defenses and the counterclaim, which the trial court granted in part. The trial court subsequently granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment as to liability and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which the homeowner appealed.The Supreme Court of Connecticut denied the bank's motion to dismiss the appeal, concluding that the filed rate doctrine, as applied by the federal courts, did not affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. The court also found that the trial court improperly struck the homeowner’s special defenses of unclean hands and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reasoned that the homeowner's allegations were directly related to the bank's enforcement of the provision of the mortgage agreement authorizing the bank to purchase force placed insurance, and the alleged effect of the bank’s conduct in enforcing that provision, that it wrongfully increased the homeowner’s overall debt, provided a sufficient nexus to the foreclosure action. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "M&T Bank v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mercedes-Benz Financial and 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC, and its principal, Aniello Dizenzo. The plaintiff, Mercedes-Benz Financial, alleged that the defendants breached a motor vehicle lease agreement by failing to make payments. After the defendants failed to appear, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment and rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants later moved to open and set aside the default judgment, arguing that the vehicle had serious defects, making it dangerous to operate, and that they had returned the vehicle to the dealership. They also claimed that they mistakenly thought the case had been resolved.The trial court denied the defendants' motion to open the judgment, concluding that the motion was untimely and had no basis. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which acknowledged that the trial court incorrectly determined that the motion was untimely but upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that it had not abused its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that it had no basis.The defendants then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to open. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's determination that the motion was untimely was incorrect, and this error likely affected the trial court's decision on the merits of the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the lower court to reverse its judgment and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendants' motion to open the judgment. View "Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC" on Justia Law

In this Connecticut case, the plaintiff, Erin C. Hassett, purchased a used motor vehicle from the defendant, Secor’s Auto Center, Inc., and experienced mechanical problems shortly after the purchase. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached its warranty by refusing to make necessary repairs and, as a result, she revoked her acceptance of the vehicle. The plaintiff brought legal action against the defendant, alleging breach of warranty and revocation of acceptance under statute § 42a-2608. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, including on her revocation of acceptance claim, awarding her $11,000 in damages.The plaintiff then moved for additur, requesting a refund of the full purchase price of the vehicle in addition to the $11,000 award. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, arguing that she was entitled to the $11,000 award plus a refund of the full purchase price because the jury found in her favor on her revocation of acceptance claim.The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for additur. The court found that the issue of revocation of acceptance damages had been submitted to the jury as a matter of disputed fact. The jury's award of $11,000 was determined to represent revocation of acceptance damages equivalent to its determination of "so much of the price as had been paid" in accordance with § 42a-2-711 (1). The plaintiff's argument that the court should have determined the proper measure of revocation of acceptance damages post-verdict was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the verdict did not constitute grounds to award her the full purchase price of the vehicle as a matter of law. View "Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving Plaintiff's marriage to Defendant, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue in this case was the extent to which a Connecticut court may enforce the terms of a "ketubah," a contract governing marriage under Jewish law. The trial court in this case denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the terms of the parties' ketubah as a prenuptial agreement on the ground that doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the ketubah; and (2) the trial court's alimony order, considered in light of Plaintiff's net earning capacity, was not an abuse of discretion. View "Tilsen v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the superior court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction High Watch Recovery Center, Inc.'s administrative appeal challenging the decision of the Department of Public Health approving a certificate of need application submitted by Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC, holding that the appellate court erred.Birch Hill submitted a certificate of need application to the Office of Health Care Access requesting public approval to establish a substance abuse treatment facility in Kent. The Department and Birch Hill entered into an agreed settlement constituting a final order wherein the Department approved Birch Hill's application subject to certain conditions. High Watch, which operated a nonprofit substance abuse treatment facility, intervened and appealed the final order. The superior court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Department's decision was not a final decision in a contested case and that High Watch was not aggrieved by the decision. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court did not err in determining that High Watch's petition requesting intervenor status in the public hearing on Birch Hill's certificate of need application was not a legal sufficient request for a public hearing for the purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. 19a-639a(e). View "High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dep't of Public Health" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court declining to pierce Sebastian Holdings, Inc.'s (SHI) corporate veil and to hold Alexander Vik, SHI's sole shareholder and director, jointly and severally liable with SHI for an approximately $243 million foreign judgment against Vik, holding that the trial court did not err.After SHI failed to pay the English judgment Deutsche Bank commenced this action against Defendants alleging that Vik caused SHI to breach its contractual obligations to Deutsche Bank and to fraudulently convey funds to third parties in order to defraud Deutsche Bank out of money owed. Count two sought a declaratory judgment piercing SHI's corporate veil and holding Vik jointly and severally liable for the English judgment. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Deutsche Bank could not prevail on its claim that the results of the trial would have been different if the court had applied Connecticut law or if it had correctly applied the laws of Turks and Caicos Islands, a British territory. View "Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Defendants' appeals from the order of the trial court denying their specials motions to dismiss the underlying civil action brought against them by Plaintiff, holding that a trial court's denial of a colorable special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-196a is an appealable final judgment under State v. Curcio, 453 A.2d 566 (Conn. 1983).Plaintiff brought this action against claiming that Defendants breached a nondisparagement provision of the parties' settlement agreement, caused him to suffer economic damages, and deprived him of the benefit of the agreement. Defendants filed separate special motions to dismiss the action as a SLAPP suit pursuant to Conn. Gen. Conn. 52-196a. The trial court denied the special motions. The appellate court reversed and granted Plaintiff's motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's denial of Defendants' colorable special motions to dismiss constituted an appealable final judgment under State v. Curcio, 463 A.2d 566 (Conn. 1983). View "Pryor v. Brignole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the appellate court determining that the four exclusive commercial real estate listing agreements at issue in this case were unenforceable, holding that the appellate court decided that issue correctly.When this case was first brought to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the listing agreements did not violate state antitrust law. On remand for consideration of the remaining grounds on which Defendants had prevailed at trial, the appellate court concluded that the listening agreements incorrectly failed to specify the duration of the brokerage authorization, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-325a(b) and/or (c), thus rendering them unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the listing agreements complied with the statutory durational requirement; (2) the agreements were personal service contracts requiring the personal performance of the named broker, who died in January 2013; and (3) therefore, Defendants were not liable to Plaintiffs. View "Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC" on Justia Law