Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Kiewit Infrastructure Co.

── Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 26, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. BLAKESLEE ARPAIA CHAPMAN, INC. v. KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO. ET AL. (AC 47355) Cradle, C. J., and Seeley and Wilson, Js. Syllabus The defendant Connecticut Port Authority appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in concluding that it was not entitled to sovereign immunity. Held: The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that it failed to meet its burden of establishing that it was an arm of the state that was entitled to sovereign immunity, as this court was persuaded by the defendant’s enabling legislation (§ 15-31a et seq.) that the legislature did not intend for it to be treated as an arm of the state, and this court’s consideration of the remaining factors set forth in Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Co. (272 Conn. 81), employed when deciding whether an entity properly may assert a sovereign immunity defense, did not persuade it to the contrary. This court dismissed the defendant’s appeal as to its claim that the trial court erred by rejecting its argument that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by statute (§ 49-41) because the plaintiff was protected by the posting of a payment bond, as this court, having agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant had failed to raise a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, found that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss as to this claim constituted an interlocutory ruling and, thus, was not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Argued December 2, 2025—officially released May 26, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, unjust enrichment, and for other relief, brought to the Supe- rior Court in the judicial district of New London and transferred to the judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, where the court, Noble, J., denied the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Connecticut Port Authority, and the defendant Connecticut Port Authority appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed in part; affirmed. Linda L. Morkan, with whom were Frederick E. Hed- berg and, on the brief, Lisa A. Andrzejewski, for the appellant (defendant Connecticut Port Authority).  Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. Patrick T. Clendenen, with whom was Jordan J. Kow- alski, for the appellee (pla