American rule in Connecticut

1995The plaintiff's base their claim of attorney's fees upon the following clause of the lease; "And the Lessee's shall indemnify the Lessors against and save them harmless from any and all liability, fines, penalties, damages and costs, including attorney's fees by reason of Lessees' violation of, or non-compliance with, any laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or directions which now or hereafter may be enacted, made or issued by any Federal, state, county, municipal, Town or other governmental I authority, or any department, board or bureau or officer thereof, or similar body, or by reason of

1995The plaintiff's base their claim of attorney's fees upon the following clause of the lease; "And the Lessee's shall indemnify the Lessors against and save them harmless from any and all liability, fines, penalties, damages and costs, including attorney's fees by reason of Lessees' violation of, or non-compliance with, any laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or directions which now or hereafter may be enacted, made or issued by any Federal, state, county, municipal, Town or other governmental I authority, or any department, board or bureau or officer thereof, or similar body, or by reason of

2003This court has recently indicated our adherence to this so called American rule." Doe et al. v. Stephen Heintz et al., 201 Conn. 1 , 14-15 , 513 A.2d 1218 (1986) (internal cites omitted; quotation marks omitted).

2003This court has recently indicated our adherence to this so called American rule." Doe et al. v. Stephen Heintz et al., 201 Conn. 1 , 14-15 , 513 A.2d 1218 (1986) (internal cites omitted; quotation marks omitted).

2018"The so-called American rule for the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party bars such an award except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maris v. McGrath , 269 Conn. 834 , 835, 850 A.2d 133 (2004).

2018"The so-called American rule for the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party bars such an award except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maris v. McGrath , 269 Conn. 834 , 835, 850 A.2d 133 (2004).

2018Connecticut follows "[t]he general rule of law known as the American rule .... [Under this rule] attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation *1163 marks omitted.) Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso , supra, 240 Conn. at 72 , 689 A.2d 1097 .

2018Connecticut follows "[t]he general rule of law known as the American rule .... [Under this rule] attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation *1163 marks omitted.) Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso , supra, 240 Conn. at 72 , 689 A.2d 1097 .

2025Specifically, the defendants argue that, because the plaintiff was awarded its attorney’s fees after the English judgment was rendered in its favor, ‘‘[the plaintiff’s] attempt to enforce that very same judg- ment against Vik should, as a matter of equity, be subject to the very same fee shifting principles’’ and that the failure to do so would encourage ‘‘international forum shopping.’’ As our Supreme Court has recognized, how- ever, the American rule ‘‘is well entrenched in our juris- prudence’’; Doe v. State, 216 Conn. 85, 106 , 579 A.2d 37 (1990); and, as a general matter, ‘‘it is the prer

2025Specifically, the defendants argue that, because the plaintiff was awarded its attorney’s fees after the English judgment was rendered in its favor, ‘‘[the plaintiff’s] attempt to enforce that very same judg- ment against Vik should, as a matter of equity, be subject to the very same fee shifting principles’’ and that the failure to do so would encourage ‘‘international forum shopping.’’ As our Supreme Court has recognized, how- ever, the American rule ‘‘is well entrenched in our juris- prudence’’; Doe v. State, 216 Conn. 85, 106 , 579 A.2d 37 (1990); and, as a general matter, ‘‘it is the prer

2001The court's analysis of this issue must begin with a statement of"[t]he general rule of law known as the "American rule' [which] is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." Chrysler Corporation v. Maiocco , 209 Conn. 579 , 590 (1989).

1998Connecticut adheres to the American rule.’ Marsh Day & Calhoun v. Solomon, 204 Conn. 639, 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).” (Citation omitted.) Chrysler Corp. v. Maiocco, 209 Conn. 579, 590 , 552 A.2d 1207 (1989); see O’Leary s.

2021See Mangiante v. Nie- miec, 98 Conn. App. 567, 570 , 910 A.2d 235 (2006). ‘‘[U]nder the American rule, [a party] ordinarily cannot recover attorney’s fees for breach of contract in the absence of an express provision allowing recovery . . . .’’ (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Winakor v. Savalle, 198 Conn. App. 792 , 810– 11, 234 A.3d 1122 , cert. granted, 335 Conn. 958 , 239 A.3d 319 (2020); see also Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Ser- vices, LLC, 308 Conn. 312 , 326–27, 63 A.3d 896 (2013); Neiditz v. Housing Authority, 42 Conn.

2021See Mangiante v. Nie- miec, 98 Conn. App. 567, 570 , 910 A.2d 235 (2006). ‘‘[U]nder the American rule, [a party] ordinarily cannot recover attorney’s fees for breach of contract in the absence of an express provision allowing recovery . . . .’’ (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Winakor v. Savalle, 198 Conn. App. 792 , 810– 11, 234 A.3d 1122 , cert. granted, 335 Conn. 958 , 239 A.3d 319 (2020); see also Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Ser- vices, LLC, 308 Conn. 312 , 326–27, 63 A.3d 896 (2013); Neiditz v. Housing Authority, 42 Conn.

2026Co., 282 Conn. 576, 582 , 923 A.2d 697 (2007); see also Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418, 429 , 922 A.2d 1056 (2007) (“The law expects parties to bear their own litigation expenses, except where the legislature has dictated otherwise by way of statute. . . .

2026Co., 282 Conn. 576, 582 , 923 A.2d 697 (2007); see also Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418, 429 , 922 A.2d 1056 (2007) (“The law expects parties to bear their own litigation expenses, except where the legislature has dictated otherwise by way of statute. . . .

2002"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. " Marsh, Day Calhoun v. Solomon , 204 Conn. 639 , 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

2002"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. " Marsh, Day Calhoun v. Solomon , 204 Conn. 639 , 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

2017Under the American rule, a party cannot recover attorneys' fees in the absence of statutory authority or a contractual provision." (Citation omitted.) Doe v. State , 216 Conn. 85 , 106, 579 A.2d 37 (1990) ; see Gino's Pizza of East Hartford Inc . v. Kaplan , 193 Conn. 135 , 140, 475 A.2d 305 (1984) ("[t]he rule in Connecticut is that absent contractual or statutory authorization, each party must pay its own attorneys' fees").

2017Under the American rule, a party cannot recover attorneys' fees in the absence of statutory authority or a contractual provision." (Citation omitted.) Doe v. State , 216 Conn. 85 , 106, 579 A.2d 37 (1990) ; see Gino's Pizza of East Hartford Inc . v. Kaplan , 193 Conn. 135 , 140, 475 A.2d 305 (1984) ("[t]he rule in Connecticut is that absent contractual or statutory authorization, each party must pay its own attorneys' fees").

2024Our Supreme Court, however, has ‘‘recognized a ‘bad faith’ exception to the American rule, which permits a court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on the basis of bad faith conduct of the other party or the other party’s attorney.’’ Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133, 178 , 851 A.2d 1113 (2004). 2 The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in determining the amount of attorney’s fees to award in the absence of sufficient evidence to support that amount.

2024Our Supreme Court, however, has ‘‘recognized a ‘bad faith’ exception to the American rule, which permits a court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on the basis of bad faith conduct of the other party or the other party’s attorney.’’ Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133, 178 , 851 A.2d 1113 (2004). 2 The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in determining the amount of attorney’s fees to award in the absence of sufficient evidence to support that amount.

2019Pursuant to the American rule, "except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable [attorney's] fee from the loser." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury , 239 Conn. 375 , 393, 685 A.2d 1108 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon , 250 Conn. 147 , 155, 735 A.2d 333 (1999).

2019Pursuant to the American rule, "except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable [attorney's] fee from the loser." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury , 239 Conn. 375 , 393, 685 A.2d 1108 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon , 250 Conn. 147 , 155, 735 A.2d 333 (1999).

2019Pursuant to the American rule, "except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable [attorney's] fee from the loser." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury , 239 Conn. 375 , 393, 685 A.2d 1108 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon , 250 Conn. 147 , 155, 735 A.2d 333 (1999).

2019Pursuant to the American rule, "except as provided by statute or in certain defined exceptional circumstances, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable [attorney's] fee from the loser." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury , 239 Conn. 375 , 393, 685 A.2d 1108 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon , 250 Conn. 147 , 155, 735 A.2d 333 (1999).

1997See, e.g., Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 201 Conn. 1, 14 , 513 A.2d 1218 (1986); Gino’s Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, 193 Conn. 135, 140 , 475 A.2d 305 (1984); Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 297 , 472 A.2d 306 (1984); Litton Industries Credit Corporation v. Catanuto, 175 Conn. 69, 75 , 394 A.2d 191 (1978); Central New Haven Development Corporation v. Potpourri, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 132, 134 , 471 A.2d 681 (1983).” Marsh, Day & Calhoun v. Solomon, 204 Conn. 639, 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

1997See, e.g., Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 201 Conn. 1, 14 , 513 A.2d 1218 (1986); Gino’s Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, 193 Conn. 135, 140 , 475 A.2d 305 (1984); Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 297 , 472 A.2d 306 (1984); Litton Industries Credit Corporation v. Catanuto, 175 Conn. 69, 75 , 394 A.2d 191 (1978); Central New Haven Development Corporation v. Potpourri, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 132, 134 , 471 A.2d 681 (1983).” Marsh, Day & Calhoun v. Solomon, 204 Conn. 639, 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

2026This court previously has explained that exceptions to the American rule, being in derogation of common law, “must be narrowly construed.” Thunelius v. Posacki, 193 Conn. App. 666, 680 , 220 A.3d 194 (2019), citing Fennelly v. Norton, 294 Conn. 484, 504 , 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) (“[w]hen a statute is in derogation of common law . . . it should receive a strict construction Speer v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and is not to be extended, modified, repealed or enlarged in its scope” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)).

2026This court previously has explained that exceptions to the American rule, being in derogation of common law, “must be narrowly construed.” Thunelius v. Posacki, 193 Conn. App. 666, 680 , 220 A.3d 194 (2019), citing Fennelly v. Norton, 294 Conn. 484, 504 , 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) (“[w]hen a statute is in derogation of common law . . . it should receive a strict construction Speer v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and is not to be extended, modified, repealed or enlarged in its scope” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendants’ motion, arguing, inter alia, that, under Connecticut choice of law rules, the issue of attorney’s fees was a procedural matter governed by Connecticut law.3 The plaintiff further argued that, because Connecticut fol- lows the ‘‘American rule,’’ pursuant to which each party is responsible for its own attorney’s fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise; see id., 93–94; the defen- dants were not entitled to attorney’s fees as prevailing parties.

2002(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Garnett, 231 Conn. 77, 94 , 646 A.2d 1308 (1994).

2001Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc ., 239 Conn. 284 , 311 (1996).

2000Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc., 239 Conn. 284 , 311 (1996).