An Act Requiring A Landlord To Reimburse A Tenant For Spoiled Food Or Medicine Under Certain Conditions.
Summary
HB06495 would amend Connecticut’s landlord-tenant laws to require certain landlords to reimburse tenants for spoiled food or medicine when spoilage results from a failure to repair refrigeration equipment, or from electrical malfunctions within the landlord’s control that cause refrigeration to fail. The requirement applies only to landlords that own 25 or more dwelling units.
The bill gives landlords a 24-hour window to repair or replace the refrigeration equipment, or to provide alternative refrigeration, in order to avoid reimbursement liability. If a tenant seeks reimbursement, the tenant must provide proof of purchase for the spoiled items, and the landlord must reimburse the tenant within 30 days after receiving that proof.
Impact
The bill would add a new tenant-protection obligation to title 47a of the Connecticut General Statutes, creating a specific reimbursement remedy tied to landlord-controlled refrigeration failures. It would affect larger landlords, particularly multifamily property owners with 25 or more dwelling units, and would establish documentation and timing requirements for both tenants and landlords in claims involving spoiled food or medicine.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer- and tenant-protection measure intended to address out-of-pocket losses caused by maintenance failures.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of landlord liability and the threshold limiting the bill to landlords with 25 or more dwelling units. Landlords may object to mandatory reimbursement for perishable losses, the short 24-hour repair-or-alternative-refrigeration deadline, and the administrative burden of verifying claims and processing payments. Tenants and housing advocates would likely support the measure as a remedy for losses caused by conditions outside the tenant’s control, especially where essential medicine is involved.