Imperial Oil Co., Inc. v. James Sapita (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Imperial Oil Company, sues the defendant, James Sapita, for nonpayment of a bill for labor and materials supplied during the installation of two, gas-fired water heaters, two transfer valves, and a vinyl shower pan at the defendant's residence.   There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff's employees installed the products in question.   The defendant denies, however, that he ever agreed to have that work done.   Also, the plaintiff acknowledges that no written contract was signed by the defendant.

On May 15, 2012, the court received evidence at the bench trial of this matter, and the court makes the following findings of fact and rulings of law.   In the first half of 2010 the defendant engaged various contractors to remodel extensively a house which he owns.   The plaintiff was one of these contractors, and that company completed rough plumbing work in divers area of the home.   The plaintiff billed the defendant $6,241 for this work, which bill the defendant paid in full.

Unfortunately, the defendant suffers from back ailments which required spinal fusion surgery that was performed while renovations were still ongoing.   During the defendant's physical incapacity and recuperation he was virtually incommunicado.   When the bathroom tile contractor pointed out to the plaintiff's workman that the tiler had to cease work until a new shower pan and 3–way transfer valve for a special shower sprayer were in place, the defendant was unavailable for consultation.   That work was not originally part of the job for which the plaintiff was hired.   The plaintiff's manager, and part-owner, William Vedovato, decided to do the extra work without first obtaining the defendant's approval, so that the defendant's bathroom could be finished.   The plaintiff has charged the defendant $517 for this extra work, and the defendant declines to pay for it.

Also, the defendant had a specialized whirlpool tub installed.   Vedovato perceived that the defendant's existing electric water heating system was inadequate to produce the volume of hot water needed by the whirlpool tub.   On May 10, 2010, Vedovato discussed this issue with the defendant and sent a proposal to him for the installation of two gas-fired water heaters and another transfer valve.   The proposed cost was $4,825.

Because of his convalescence, the defendant never responded one way or the other to this proposal.   No written contract was signed.   Instead, based on the defendant's unavailability and Vedovato's assumptions that the defendant would have wanted the work to proceed, the plaintiff performed the installation contained in the proposal and billed the defendant accordingly.   The defendant refused to pay this bill, also.

It should be pointed out that the plaintiff, per Exhibit 2, is a licensed plumbing company and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of the Connecticut Home Improvement Act, General Statutes Chapter 400, which would require any agreement to be in writing and signed by the defendant, by virtue of General Statutes § 20–428(4).

As to the $517 claim for installing the vinyl shower pan and 3–way, transfer valve, the court determines that the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an implied contract existed to perform this work.   The defendant hired the plaintiff to complete the rough plumbing work to renovate the bathroom.   In order to complete that renovation, this extra work was necessary.   The defendant had compensated the plaintiff as he was billed by the plaintiff.   The court infers that the defendant intended to engage the plaintiff to do this rough plumbing also because that work was essential to fulfill the remodeling project.

However, regarding the replacement of the defendant's water heating system, no contract was ever made by the parties for this work.   No meeting of the minds was reached as to whether the project was to be done and for what price.   Through mistaken assumption, the plaintiff expended time, labor, and supplied the materials needed for the upgrading of the system.   The defendant has received the benefit of owning and using two, new, gas-fired water heaters of greater hot water capacity than his old system.

A plaintiff may recover damages for unjust enrichment where the plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 1. the defendant obtained a benefit;  2. it is unjust for the defendant to pay nothing for that benefit;  and 3. the refusal to pay for the benefit harms the plaintiff.  Waterview Site Services v. Pay Day, 125 Conn.App. 501, 569 (2010).   Damages for unjust enrichment are available even where no contract ever existed.  Schirmer v. Souza, 126 Conn.App. 759, 764–65 (2011).

The test for unjust enrichment involves an evaluation of the equities surrounding the activity in question.  Waterview Site Services v. Pay Day, supra.   The court determines that it would be inequitable and unfair for the defendant to retain and have at his disposal the use of the new water heating system for free, and that the plaintiff sustained economic loss by the defendant's refusal to pay for the work that was performed.   The two, new water heaters greatly enhance the utility of the whirlpool tub which the defendant desired to try to alleviate his medical problems.

Although unjust enrichment is a form of restitution, the proper measure of damages “is not the loss to the plaintiff but the benefit to the defendant.”   Schirmer v. Souza, supra, 771–72.   There is scant evidence before the court on this issue.   The plaintiff submitted its invoice, but the court must assume that the invoice price includes profit, etc.

Again, the damages are the benefit gained by the defendant.   The defendant indicated that he was content with his old, electric system.   Also, the plaintiff removed the old copper pipes which were replaced with PVC. The defendant would have wanted to sell that scrap copper himself.

“When damages are appropriate but difficult to prove the law eschews the necessity of mathematical exactitude.”  Id., 773.   All that is required is a fair and reasonable estimate based on the evidence adduced.  Id.

The court observes that one, new water heater may have satisfied the defendant's needs, and that, although two is better than one, the benefit is not necessarily doubled for the defendant.   The court finds that a fair and reasonable estimate of that benefit is $2,500.   To reiterate, it is not the cost to the plaintiff that establishes damages, but, instead, the benefit conferred upon the defendant that controls.

Finally, the court has reviewed the self-appearing defendant's answer and the evidence presented and determines that the defendant has failed to prove any special defense or set-off.   As mentioned above, the court has considered the removal of the copper pipes when it assessed damages and the diminishment of benefit thereby.

Judgment enters for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $3,017 ($2,500 plus $517) plus costs to be taxed by the clerk.

Sferrazza, S.J.

Sferrazza, Samuel J., S.J.