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

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