Kapura General Contractors, Inc. v. Lanese, Michael
On June 25, 2024, the Connecticut jury returned a $12,491.10 verdict in favor of Plaintiff Kapura General Contractors, Inc. in the present breach of contract case. The cause of action arose when Defendant Michael Lanese refused to reimburse Plaintiff for the completed contractual work.
Case Background
On January 7, 2022, Kapura General Contractors initiated a breach of contract lawsuit before the Connecticut Superior Court, New Britain J.D. Judges Joseph Shortall, Kimberly Knox, Lisa Morgan, and Robert Young presided over this case. [Case number: HHB-CV22-6070434-S]
Cause
Plaintiff Kapura General Contractors, Inc., was a licensed home improvement and construction contractor located at 339 Cooke Street, Plainville, Connecticut. Defendant Michael Lanese owned the property at 2-4 Pulaski Street, Torrington, Connecticut. The Plaintiff contracted to perform emergency services at the property. These services included boarding up and securing it, as well as conducting house clean-up and asbestos assessment following a fire.
On July 30, 2020, both parties entered into a contract authorizing Plaintiff to carry out necessary work at 2-4 Pulaski Street, including boarding up, cleaning, and securing the premises due to the incurred damages. The Plaintiff completed all the required tasks, including emergency services and an asbestos inspection, totaling $13,586.49. Despite submitting an invoice to the defendant for this work, which remained unpaid, the plaintiff also filed a claim with the defendant’s insurance company. Although the insurance company reimbursed Defendant for the work performed, they failed to forward any payments owed to Plaintiff.
Despite numerous requests for payment, Lanese did not settle the outstanding debt under the agreement. The Plaintiff argued that they deserved to receive the contractually agreed-upon amount of $13,586.49 for professional services they provided, including labor and materials used to improve the property.
Injury
Due to Defendant’s failure to fulfill the contract, Plaintiff incurred financial losses that encompassed the expenses and costs associated with the work performed on the property. Consequently, the Defendant was unjustly enriched at the Plaintiff’s expense.
Damages
The Plaintiff sought several forms of relief in the present breach of contract lawsuit:
First, a declaration of a $13,586.49 lien on the subject property.
Second, the sale of the property with the proceeds directed to the plaintiff to fulfill their judgment.
Third, reimbursement of costs and attorney’s fees under Connecticut General Statutes §52-249.
Fourth, prejudgment interest according to Connecticut General Statutes §37-38
Fifth, attorney’s fees and any other relief deemed appropriate under applicable law and equity principles.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Kapura General Contractors, Inc.
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kevin s. Coyne
- Defendant(s): Michael Lanese
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Pro se
Claims
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant breached the contract and engaged in unjust enrichment. The Defendant was obligated to settle the outstanding balance and associated costs. Despite repeated demands for payment, he did not acknowledge the due amount. The Plaintiff sought to enforce its mechanic’s lien on the property to recover the unpaid sums as mentioned earlier.
Defense
Defendant Lanese’s counterclaim alleged that Kapura General Contractors, Inc. engaged in unfair and deceptive practices with intent to defraud. Initially, Kapura took advantage of Lanese’s emotional distress by inducing him to sign a contract hastily in the middle of the night. Despite Lanese’s clear instruction to only secure the house, Kapura proceeded with extensive cleaning services without his consent, as evidenced by Chris McCarty’s documentation on the work authorization form.
Despite repeated requests from Lanese’s wife to contact him directly, Kapura failed to do so and allegedly did not disclose the additional services until after they had been completed. Furthermore, Kapura, who was well aware of ethical standards, provided another customer with a detailed contract but only provided Lanese with a brief contract that omitted critical details. They only informed Lanese of the cleaning service after its completion and sent the crew overnight without notice. Kapura’s actions constituted unfair trade practices by fraudulently billing Lanese over $10,000 for unauthorized services and putting pressure on him to pay by taking legal action and placing a mechanic’s lien on his property.
In his second counterclaim, Lanese alleged that Kapura’s frivolous and excessive lien of $13,586.49 was inflated for cleaning a small, furnished apartment. The charges were based on unrealistic cleaning standards. It included duplicate billing for walls, ceilings, and floors, which were impossible to clean thoroughly with furniture in place. The tenant’s photos showed dirt and debris, providing evidence of the unsatisfactory results. Lanese claimed that the lien constituted an abuse of legal process, filed without merit solely to coerce payment from him. He further argued that Kapura’s unethical behavior damaged his reputation and creditworthiness, causing stress, anxiety, and legal expenses.
Jury Verdict
On June 25, 2024, the Connecticut jury found in favor of the Plaintiff Kapura General Contractors, Inc. The jury awarded $12,491.10 to Plaintiff as economic damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Leave A Comment