LLC v. Carol A. Georgacopoulos (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Southern Connecticut Restoration, L.L.C., brings this complaint against the defendant, Carol A. Georgacopoulos, in three counts seeking damages for repairs, renovations and restorations to premises of the defendant in the sum of $57,868.46, plus treble damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-564.

The defendant, Carol A. Georgacopoulos, denies the material allegations of the plaintiff's complaint and seeks judgment in her behalf.

The Court finds that the material facts relating to this action are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant's insurance carrier had an understanding between them as to the defendant's home damages suffered by the defendant from frozen water pipes and for which the carrier had issues an insurance policy protecting the defendant upon these losses;  and, the plaintiff and defendant had a separate agreement wherein the defendant's damages resulting from the water pipes becoming frozen would be repaired by the plaintiff in accordance with the evaluation set out as payment due to the defendant under the insurance policy of the defendant's carrier.   The issues presented in the plaintiff's complaint primarily have to do with payment by the defendant to the plaintiff for repair work charges performed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims that payments due were to be made from any insurance monies received by the defendant resulting from the damages to the defendant's home from the frozen water pipes and received by the defendant.

The defendant contends that payments from the carrier to the defendant directly for damages covered by the insurance policy issued as coverage on the real estate damages was the source for payment to the plaintiff for the repairs provided by the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff contends that a separate insurance policy that was issued and which was paid to the defendant for damaged contents within the building was also subject to the payment for the repairs to the defendant's building as modified by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is based upon the interpretation that insurance coverage included both policies, even though the agreement of the parties was directed only on the damages resulting from the frozen pipes to the real property and the damages to the contents was not addressed as to repairs or replacement.

Additionally, the tenor of the agreement relating to payment for repairs was associated with the sum available through the coverage on the real estate policy.   Nonetheless, the plaintiff insists that payment was to be available through any insurance coverage available relating to the frozen pipe damages.

Although each party, for its own purposes, did not mention specific insurance coverage, except as relating to the real estate damages and not with regard to payment from other sources, the defendant testified that her discussions of repair costs to the real estate were specifically limited to the sum available only from the policy coverage on the real estate as determined by the damages estimate prepared by the plaintiff.

However, both parties knew at the time they entered into the agreement that the extent of the damages to the defendant's home was the sum which the insurance carrier's real property policy would provide for the repair of those damages to the defendant's home and that the plaintiff would carry out those repairs for that sum.

Nonetheless, the defendant wanted changes made to particular items of the repairs, which increased the cost of the repair over the amount provided by the insurance payment.   It is these overage costs that the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action.

The defendant does not dispute these modifications were requested by her.   She does dispute the additional costs over and above the sums associated with the original costs of the repairs, which she was entitled to under her insurance policy for damages to her home.   Her argument is that her discussions with the plaintiff stressed that these changes would come within the sum the insurance carrier had determined was the damages she suffered and the amount due her under their insurance policy, and that the plaintiff assured her that her insurance coverage would be sufficient to pay for the changes she was proposing and thus, she agreed to the modifications of the original agreement.

A breakdown of the financial aspects of the repairs was not requested by the defendant, nor provided by the plaintiff, until the work was substantially completed by the plaintiff.   Thus, she did not question the plaintiff about his assurances that the real property insurance payments were sufficient to cover the costs of the modified repairs.

The plaintiff substantially agrees with the defendant's argument that the costs of the repairs were covered by the funds received by the defendant under her policy for damages to her real estate;  however, the plaintiff claims in addition that the defendant knew that her requested changes were involving costs over those provided by the defendant's insurance policy coverage for damages to the defendant's real property, but that she also had an insurance policy that paid the defendant for other damages resulting to the contents of her home.   That is, the plaintiff knew of this additional coverage and thus, that there were sufficient insurance funds for the defendant to pay for the changes she was requesting, even though neither party discussed how the defendant would finance the additional costs of the changes requested by the defendant.

The Court, after hearing the parties, their witnesses and other evidence, finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

that, the parties entered into an agreement in which the plaintiff was to repair damage to the defendant's real estate resulting from water pipes freezing and water escaping within the defendant's house, and for which the defendant received insurance proceeds to repair the damage;

that, the defendant also received on another policy insurance proceeds to the damaged contents within the defendant's house;

that, the plaintiff proceeded to repair the damaged house of the defendant, based upon a damages assessment to the defendant's house prepared by or for the liable insurance carrier;

that, the defendant requested certain repair modifications to the repair plans set out in the parties' agreement;

that, the defendant's modification increased the repair costs over that provided in the payments made under the insurance policy providing real estate damages protection;

that, the plaintiff provided the defendant with assurances that the requested insurance payments would be sufficient to pay the additional costs of repairs by the insurance proceeds received by the defendant;

that, these proceeds included sums received from both insurance policies;

that, the defendant may have wanted to limit these costs of the modifications to the sum received from the proceeds of only the real estate insurance policy.   She, however, did not specify this in her agreement with the plaintiff, except in a generalization that included any and all insurance coverage she had received;

that, the plaintiff's assurances to the defendant that the costs of the changes requested by the defendant were within the insurance proceeds, was based upon the total amounts the defendant received under both policies and was not inconsistent with the parties' agreement.

However, since the defendant agreed to the terms of the agreement as modified by her requested changes, she was bound by its terms and liable for the costs of the changes;

that, the defendant understood that her query to the plaintiff that the total costs of the repairs, plus the defendant's changes, was to apply only to the insurance proceeds applied only to the real estate insurance coverage was not expressed in the parties' agreement, nor when the agreement was modified.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the total sum of the agreement's costs for the repairs as modified.

Further, that the defendant's actions in writing upon the checks received from the insurance carrier and receiving the proceeds did not adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff from pressing its claim for payment of work performed by way of the changes in the parties' original agreement.

Therefore, judgment may enter for the plaintiff on the First Count of its complaint in the sum of $12,391.58;  and, for the defendant on the second and third counts of the said complaint, together with court costs to the plaintiff payable by the defendant.

Kremski, J.T.R.

Kremski, Julius J., J.T.R.