Argued
January 31, 2019
Superior
Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Hon.
Arthur A. Hiller, judge
Page 700
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 701
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 702
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 703
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 704
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 705
Lori
Welch-Rubin, for the appellants (defendants).
Thomas
J. Weihing, Bridgeport, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Keller,
Prescott and Harper, Js.
OPINION
PRESCOTT,
J.
[191
Conn.App. 784] The defendants, Jason Roberts, Inc., and
Robert D. Hartmann, Sr., appeal from the judgment of the
trial court denying their motion to vacate an arbitration
award and granting an application to confirm the award filed
by the plaintiff, Michael DeRose. On appeal, the defendants
claim that the court improperly (1) found that the arbitrator
effectively had defaulted the defendants for failing to
appear at the final arbitration hearing, and that this
allegedly erroneous factual finding colored the courts
decision-making process with respect to the motion to vacate;
(2) failed to provide the defendants with an evidentiary
hearing before ruling on the motion to vacate; (3) granted a
motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed at the
arbitrator and his files; (4) failed to vacate the
arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had not
addressed the entirety of the submission; (5) confirmed an
award that violated public policy; and (6) confirmed an award
made in manifest disregard of the law in violation of General
Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).[1] We disagree and, accordingly,
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The
facts underlying the parties long-standing dispute are set
forth in our decision in [191 Conn.App. 785] Jason
Roberts, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation
Act, 127 Conn.App. 780, 782-85, 15 A.3d 1145 (2011).
Additional facts and procedural history are set forth in the
arbitrators award and in the trial courts oral decision and
subsequent articulation. "[Jason Roberts, Inc.,] is a
concrete business. During the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, [it]
employed [DeRose] as a concrete artisan. While [DeRose] was
working for [Jason Roberts, Inc.] as an employee, he asked
for a raise in salary. In order to give [DeRose] the
potential to earn more money, [Jason Roberts, Inc.,]
directed [DeRose] to set up a business so that he could enter
into an agreement with [it] as a licensed dealer. In or about
2001, after [DeRose] had set up his own business, [Jason
Roberts, Inc.,] presented him with a licensed dealer
authorization (agreement), and, on May 4, 2001, [DeRose]
signed the agreement and became a licensed dealer for [Jason
Roberts, Inc.]
* * *
"[DeRose]
was a licensed dealer of [Jason Roberts, Inc.,] during the
years 2001
Page 706
and 2002. During those years, [Jason Roberts, Inc.,]
classified [DeRose] as an independent contractor. At the end
of 2002, [DeRose] terminated the agreement because the
arrangement had become unprofitable for him. After
terminating the agreement, [DeRose] filed a claim for
benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act (act),
General Statutes § 31-222 et seq. This claim for benefits
caused ... the administrator of the act [administrator] to
issue a missing wage assignment.... On April 25, 2003 ... [a
field auditor of the employment security division of the
state department of labor] issued [a] written report, wherein
he concluded that [DeRose] was an employee [of Jason
Roberts, Inc.,] during the years 2001 and 2002. In a letter
dated April 29, 2003, the [administrator] informed [Jason
Roberts, Inc.,] of this determination and that there would
be an assessment for the contributions due in the amount of
[191 Conn.App. 786] $4366.03 plus interest. On May 16, 2003,
[Jason Roberts, Inc.,] appealed this determination to the
appeals division .... On September 12, 2007 ... the appeals
referee affirmed the determination. In its decision, the
appeals referee applied § 31-222 (a) (1) (B) (ii), more
commonly known as the ABC test, ... and concluded that
[DeRose] was an employee of [Jason Roberts, Inc.] The
referee reached this conclusion after having determined that
[Jason Roberts, Inc.,] failed to satisfy any of the three
prongs of the ABC test." (Footnote omitted.)
Id., at 782-84, 15 A.3d 1145.
Both
the Workers Compensation Review Board (board) and the
Superior Court subsequently affirmed the decision of the
appeals referee. Id., at 784-85, 15 A.3d 1145. Jason
Roberts, Inc., then appealed to this court claiming that, in
determining whether DeRose was an employee, the board should
have applied General Statutes § 42-133e (b), rather than the
"ABC test" to the underlying facts. Id.,
at 785, 15 A.3d 1145. We disagreed and affirmed the judgment
of the trial court. Id.
In
2007, during the pendency of the workers compensation
appeal, DeRose filed a civil action against the
defendants.[2] The operative complaint contained
seven counts in which DeRose alleged that the defendants (1)
breached their agreement with him by failing to compensate
him for various jobs, (2) breached the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, (3) made negligent
misrepresentations, (4) made fraudulent misrepresentations,
(5) violated several state labor statutes, (6) committed
unfair trade practices, and (7) negligently inflicted
emotional distress. In May, 2011, [191 Conn.App. 787] the
defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint raising a
number of special defenses.[3] Jason Roberts, Inc.,
also filed a counterclaim against DeRose, alleging that he
had breached the parties agreement by failing to complete
work or utilizing poor workmanship, and committed statutory
theft by retaining funds belonging to Jason Roberts, Inc.
On
June 6, 2012, the parties entered into an agreement to
resolve their civil action through binding arbitration.
DeRose subsequently withdrew his civil action from the
Superior Court. The arbitration agreement contains a clause
titled "Submission to Arbitration and Scope of
Arbitration,"
Page 707
which states as follows: "The controversy shall be
submitted to a panel of one arbitrator (Attorney Daniel
Portanova), who shall hear, settle and determine by
arbitration the matters in controversy within the scope of
the claim based upon the evidence and testimony presented.
The arbitrator is permitted, but not required, to apply the
rules of evidence in civil cases when considering the
evidence presented. No party shall have the right or power to
revoke the submission without the written consent of the
other party except on the grounds as exist in law or equity
for the rescission or revocation of any contract. All issues
shall be submitted to and fully and finally adjudicated by
the arbitrator ...