KMK INSULATION, INC. v. A. PRETE AND SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ET AL., 49 Conn. App. 522

Summary

The general contractor subcontracted work to the company, which entered into an agreement for the performance of certain labor services with the subcontractor. The surety furnished a bond as required by statute. When the subcontractor was not paid, it instituted an action under § 49-42(a) to recover payment. The trial court excluded letters sent to defendants demanding payment because the company's name was different in the notices and in the pleadings, and the subcontractor had not established a nexus between the two. On appeal of the trial court's dismissal of the action, the court held that: 1) § 49-42 (a) required only "substantial accuracy" in the notice; 2) defendants were on notice as to the relevant issues and they were not surprised by the subcontractor's argument that the notices were substantially accurate; therefore, 3) the subcontractor was not obligated to prove the nexus between the company named in the notice and that named in the complaint; 4) the notice letters were ...