Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1965

College Plaza, Inc. v. Harlaco, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided January 26, 1965

152 Conn. 707; 206 A.2d 832

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Frager v. Pennsylvania General Insurance (Conn. 1967)
Scinto v. Sosin (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)
Connecticut Dep. of P. W. v. Saturn Cons., No. Cv 96 0556963 (Apr. 10, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
Cfc Greenwich Realty Devel. v. Gabelli, No. Cv 91-0115071 S (May 3, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Bio-Polymers, Inc. v. D'Arrigo (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Security Insurance v. DeLaurentis (Conn. 1987)
Paranko v. State (Conn. 1986)
John A. Errichetti Associates v. Boutin (Conn. 1981)
Ramos Iron Works, Inc. v. Franklin Construction Co. (Conn. 1978)
Board of Education v. Frey (Conn. 1978)
City of Hartford v. Local 308 (Conn. 1976)
Gary Excavating, Inc. v. Town of North Haven (Conn. 1972)
A. Sangivanni & Sons v. F. M. Floryan & Co. (Conn. 1969)
Kantrowitz v. Perlman (Conn. 1968)
Carter, Morse Co. v. Perrotti, No. Cv97-0407162 (Feb. 2, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Automated Salvage Tr. v. Auto. Co. Rec., No. Cv-95-0465819-S (Jun. 1, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Dwan v. Gardella, No. Cv91 28 55 58 (Oct. 23, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Fair Street Foundry Assoc. v. Nash, No. Cv-91-0310706s (Nov. 1, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The defendant, which constructed a shopping center for the plaintiff, has appealed from a judgment directing it to proceed with the arbitration of a dispute which arose when water damage occurred, allegedly from faulty construction. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to arbitration since the contract required that the plaintiff first obtain a ruling by the architect and also that the claim be presented within a year from the completion of the work. The court ruled that these were questions to be determined by the arbitrators and not by it.

Whether the arbitrability of a dispute is a question for the court or for the arbitrators depends upon the language of the contract. The agreement in the present case provided that “[a]ny disagree*708ment arising out of this contract or from the breach thereof shall be submitted to arbitration”. We have consistently held that under such broad and all-embracing language the question of what is subject to arbitration is for the arbitrators themselves. Gores v. Rosenthal, 150 Conn. 554, 557, 192 A.2d 210; Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 148 Conn. 192, 196, 198, 169 A.2d 646; International Brotherhood v. Trudon & Platt Motor Lines, Inc., 146 Conn. 17, 21, 147 A.2d 484; Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425, 430, 158 A. 917.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.