Spurned developers pressing their case in state’s highest court
Companies argue they did not get fair trial in 2019
HARTFORD — Now five years old, Hartford’s Dunkin’ Donuts Park has, by most accounts, been a success, and the first phase of development around the $71 million minor-league ballpark is in full swing.
But the project’s controversial past is again coming to forefront, this time before the state’s highest court.
On Monday, the state Supreme Court will begin hearing an appeal by the original developers whom the city fired from building the ballpark in 2016 for not finishing it on time and later kept from developing around the stadium just north of I-84.
A lawsuit by the original developers — Centerplan Construction Co. and DoNo
Hartford LLC — challenged the termination and sought $90 million in damages. But in 2019, a jury in Superior Court in Hartford sided with the city in a verdict that placed the blame on Centerplan and DoNo for not completing the ballpark on time. The jury also awarded the city $335,000 in damages.
The construction spanned two mayoral administrations, breaking ground under former Mayor Pedro E. Segarra and ending under the current mayor, Luke Bronin, who fired the developers.
The opening of Dunkin’ Donuts Park was delayed a year, until 2017, while a new contractor came on board to finish the job. A new developer also was chosen to build a mix of apartments, retail and entertainment space and parking on the 13 acres around the ballpark, seen as vital to filling a decades-old gap between downtown and the city’s northern neighborhoods.
The developers are asking the Supreme Court to order a new trial in Superior Court, arguing that they did not get a fair one in 2019.
The developers were prevented, according to a July 2, 2020, court filing from their attorney, from presenting evidence that they could not be “liable for countless flaws” found in the ballpark designs.
“And stop them the trial court did — every single time plaintiffs sought to offer any evidence to explain why they could not possibly be responsible for the multitude of errors and omissions discovered in plans and specifications prepared and completed while the architect was under contract with — and directed and controlled by — the city,” the filing argues.
The filing observes: “The central issue in this case — and the fulcrum of the trial — was responsibility for the architect’s error-laden design that increased the cost of the ballpark, delayed its completion, precipitated the termination of DoNo and Centerplan by the city, and caused the litigation leading to this appeal.”
The developer’s attorney, Louis R. Pepe, of Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLC of Hartford, declined to comment.