## Facts

- Edward Lang owned an unimproved parcel and negotiated to sell it to Joseph Grigerik at a higher price if the parcel could be approved as a building lot.
- Lang hired Gary Sharpe, a professional engineer, to conduct soil testing and prepare a site plan addressing drainage and septic-system placement to satisfy regulatory requirements.
- A town sanitarian initially approved Sharpe’s plan, and Grigerik purchased the property in reliance on that approval and the plan.
- When Grigerik later sought a building permit, a new town sanitarian and state authorities concluded the parcel was unsuitable for a septic system, and the permit was denied.
- Grigerik sued Sharpe and his firm for (1) breach of contract as an asserted third-party beneficiary of the Lang–Sharpe agreement and (2) professional negligence.
- At trial, the jury found Grigerik was not an intended or contemplated beneficiary, but was a foreseeable beneficiary, and returned a verdict for him on the contract claim; the trial court rejected the defendants’ statute-of-limitations defense to negligence.
- The Appellate Court held the negligence claim time-barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584 and adopted a third-party beneficiary standard focusing on the promisee’s intent.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted review on the applicable limitations statute and the correct third-party beneficiary intent standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the negligence claim against a professional engineer is governed by the two-year limitations period in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584 or the seven-year limitations period in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584a.
2. Whether third-party beneficiary status depends on the promisee’s intent alone or the mutual intent of both contracting parties to create enforceable rights in the third party.

## Decision

- The court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584a governs negligence actions against professional engineers for acts or omissions in the design or planning of an improvement to real property.
- The court rejected the argument that § 52-584a applies only when the contemplated improvement is actually constructed; design and planning services directed toward an improvement fall within the statute.
- The court held that third-party beneficiary status turns on the intent of both contracting parties, not solely the promisee’s intent, to create a direct obligation from the promisor to the third party.
- Because the jury found Grigerik was not an intended or contemplated beneficiary, he lacked enforceable rights under the Lang–Sharpe contract despite being foreseeable.
- The court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584a applies to claims against architects and professional engineers for injuries caused by acts or omissions in the design or planning of an improvement to real property, even if the improvement is never built.
- A nonparty may enforce a contract only when the contracting parties mutually intended to create a direct obligation from the promisor to that nonparty; incidental or foreseeable benefit is insufficient.
- A jury finding that a claimant was not an intended or contemplated beneficiary defeats third-party beneficiary contract recovery, even if the claimant was foreseeable.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that engineer-negligence claims arising from design or planning services are governed by § 52-584a’s seven-year period without requiring completion of the improvement, and it reaffirmed that third-party beneficiary contract rights require mutual intent of both contracting parties to create a direct obligation to the third party.


Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293, 721 A.2d 526 (Conn. 1998)