A-Right Plumbling, Sewer & Water Main Co., LLC v. Aquarion Operating Services Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** A-RIGHT PLUMBING, SEWER AND WATER MAIN COMPANY, LLC v. AQUARION OPERATING SERVICES COMPANY ET AL. (SC 17805) Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Sullivan, Js. Argued April 13 officially released May 29, 2007 John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff). Michael P. Shea, with whom, on the brief, was Howard Fetner, for the appellees (named defendant et al.). Elizabeth J. Stewart, with whom were Dena M. Castricone, Matthew Van Dusen and, on the brief, Luigi Spadafora, for the appellee (defendant South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, A-Right Plumbing, Sewer and Water Main Company, LLC, appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court1 in favor of the defendants, Aquarion Operating Services Company, Aquarion Water Company of Connecticut and South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment for the defendants because there is a question of fact that could not be determined on summary judgment. See Practice Book § 17-49. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, a plumbing contractor that repairs sewer and water lines, brought this action against the defendants, which operate repair programs through which consumers can, for a fixed annual fee, purchase in advance plans for the repair and replacement of water and sewer pipes, alleging violations of General Statutes § 42-110b (a)2 of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendants moved for summary judgment. After submission of the papers and oral argument, the trial court issued a thorough and thoughtful memorandum of decision and granted the defendants motions. This appeal followed. The plaintiff s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment because there is a question of fact regarding whether the defendants had engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of CUTPA. The fatal flaw in this claim, as the trial court determined and as the defendants contend in this court, is that the plaintiff never raised a claim of deceptive acts or practices as a basis for the alleged CUTPA violation in the trial court. The plaintiff s complaint does not allege deception and, as the plaintiff conceded at oral argument before this court, the plaintiff, in oral argument before the trial court on the summary judgment motion, explicitly disavowed any claim of deception. We therefore decline to address the plaintiff s claim on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. 1 The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. 2 General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
