Appellate Court Notes

by Pullman & Comley, LLC
Contact

Welcome to our Supreme and Appellate Court summaries page.  Here, I provide abbreviated summaries of decisions from the Connecticut appellate courts which highlight important issues and developments in Connecticut law, and provide practical practice pointers to litigants.  I have been summarizing these court decisions internally for our firm for more than 10 years, and providing relevant highlights to my municipal and insurance practice clients for almost as long.  It was suggested that a wider audience might appreciate brief summaries of recent rulings that condense often long and confusing decisions down to their basic elements.  These summaries are limited to the civil litigation decisions.  I may from time to time add commentary, and may even criticize a decision’s reasoning. Such commentary is solely my own personal opinion.. I hope the reader finds these summaries helpful. – Edward P. McCreery

Appellate Court Advance Release Opinions:

This was Round Three of a case previously reported on.  An intruder broke into the boss’s home where he maintained his office and demanded the secretary open a safe or he would kill her and her family.  The secretary did not know how to open the safe, and the intruder tied her up.  The boss then arrived and was assaulted by the intruder.  During the struggle, the intruder’s mask came off, revealing him to be a friend of the boss.  Leaving the secretary tied up, the boss talked him out of robbing the place, and when he left, would not let the secretary go home.  He spent several hours with her, trying to talk her out of reporting the incident to the police.

The secretary later turned around and sued her boss for false imprisonment and other claims, with a jury awarding the former employee over $1 million in damages.  The boss’s insurance companies provided a defense, but otherwise disclaimed coverage.  The insurers brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that they owed neither a defense nor indemnity on the claims of the secretary.

The umbrella policy contained an exclusion for any claims arising out of the business pursuits of the boss  The Trial Court, however, refused to grant summary judgment on the duty to defend because the allegations of the former secretary regarded tortious conduct of the boss in connection with an attempted robbery of his home, not the conduct of business. 

Thereafter, the Trial Court considered a supplemental motion for summary judgment, and granted it in favor of the primary (homeowner’s) insurer because that policy excluded coverage for damages arising out of pure emotional distress.  The Court still refused, however, to grant summary judgment on the umbrella policy, as it did not have the same emotional distress exclusion.

Thereafter, the Trial Court found that the umbrella policy did cover the secretary’s claim, and the Business Pursuit Exclusion did not apply.  The umbrella insurer appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed.  The Appellate Court noted that such Business Pursuit Exclusions are considered under an expansive causation analysis.  Homeowners policies typically exclude claims arising out of any business engaged in by the insured.  If homeowner’s policies were deemed to cover business pursuits, the premiums charged could not be kept at reasonable levels.

The term “arising out of” in an insurance policy is to be interpreted broadly.  No one can dispute that the secretary was at her boss’s home, because that is where his office was located, and she was there for the purpose of performing duties of the business.  Thus, the only reason she was assaulted was because she was at the insured’s business fulfilling her responsibilities as an employee.  Thus, her boss’s conduct of which she complained in keeping her on the premises – were connected with and had their origins in and grew out of and flowed from – the defendant’s business purposes.

The Trial Court improperly sought to ascertain whether the defendant was motivated by profit in his conduct, and further inappropriately sought to delve into the boss’s mental state of whether he was trying to protect a lifelong friend from police involvement.  Whether or not an “Occurrence” arose out of the defendant’s business pursuits is not dependent upon either his motivations, nor his state of mind.  The decision of the Trial Court was reversed with the direction to find that there was no coverage under the umbrella policy for the claims of the secretary.

Plaintiff sued for wrongful termination after she claimed she reported suspicions of violations of state law and regulations.  The defendant’s counsel filed a counterclaim, asserting that on days she claimed to be out sick, the plaintiff was actually involved in a private practice of her own.  Plaintiff’s counsel then sent a letter to each member of the Board of Directors of the defendant suggesting they could be personally liable for having allowed their attorney to file a counterclaim without their permission unless they directed a withdrawal of it.  Defendant’s counsel then filed a motion for an emergency protective order to enjoin plaintiff’s counsel from contacting members of the Board of Directors without prior permission of counsel.   The motion asserted that the plaintiff’s counsel had violated Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that rule covers members of the Board of Directors of the defendants, as they have managerial responsibility.  The Motion did not seek sanctions.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed an objection, containing a host of arguments why defense counsel was conflicted, and/or he could not represent the individuals of a corporation going through dissolution, etc., etc.  During oral argument, the Trial Court chastised plaintiff’s counsel for thinking he had the right to communicate with board members of an entity represented by an attorney.  The Court noted that simply because he copied defense counsel does not make his communication correct.  When counsel continued to argue the point with the Judge, the Judge ended the proceedings saying that she was not sure whether she would have granted sanctions or not, but defense counsel was acting professionally in not requesting them, and therefore at a minimum, she was granting the emergency motion for protective order “enthusiastically.”

Not giving up (and not appreciating what the Rule means or how it works), Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Petition for Writ of Error with the Supreme Court, claiming that the Trial Court violated the Federal and State Constitutions by refusing his offer to present testimony to establish that the attorney did not yet represent the board members individually with respect to the counterclaim issue.

First, the Appellate Court said that the attorney had standing to file the Writ of Error.  He is aggrieved, even though the Court did not impose sanctions.  An attorney has standing to seek Appellate Review of assertions they have committed an ethical violation, notwithstanding the fact that if no sanction has been imposed because the determination reflects adversely on the attorney’s professional reputation.

Nonetheless, the Trial Court had clear and convincing evidence that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it was within its inherent authority to compel compliance.  The attorney admittedly sent the letter, and admitted he did not have permission of the board members’ counsel when he sent the letter.  A corporate entity does not exist in a vacuum.  Clearly, when a corporate entity is a client under Rule 1.13, it can only act through its officers, directors, employees and shareholders.

Here, the Corporate Bylaws specifically provided that the corporation was to be managed by its Board of Directors.  As such, they had managerial responsibility under Rule 4.2.  Therefore, they, too, should have been considered clients of the lawyer representing the corporate entity.  It matters not that the defendant corporate entity was in the process of winding down.  It equally matters not that the Court declined to allow the plaintiff’s counsel to put on an evidentiary hearing.

Counsel accused of misconduct are only entitled to notice informing them of the accusations against them, so that they can meet the charges.  Due process, however, does not always entitle a party to an evidentiary hearing.  That is especially true here, where the key evidence that formulated the issue was not in dispute.

In a Footnote, the decision notes that the plaintiff’s counsel’s Writ only ended up forcing the Trial Court’s hand to find he had violated the RPC in an articulated finding.  Had he just lived with the Court’s original Order, there would not have been any risk of reputational damage.

[Editor’s Note: This case just boggles my mind.  How can you possibly think it is okay to send a threatening letter to the board members of the corporate entity represented by your opposing counsel?]

  • AC36681 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Simoulidis

This was a foreclosure action with yet another attempt to dismiss the action on the grounds that the entity foreclosing the mortgage did not have standing.  The motion to dismiss for lack of standing was filed three and one-half years after the foreclosure was commenced, asserting the plaintiff was neither the owner nor holder of the promissory note.  The plaintiff responded that the original lender (Washington Mutual) failed, the FDIC was appointed as receiver, that the plaintiff obtained the assets from the failed bank from the FDIC, with a blank endorsement, and that it had possession of the note prior to commencing the action.

This decision reiterated a whole host of prior decisions that the holder of a note is presumed to be the rightful owner.  The production of the note establishes the plaintiff’s case prima facie.  The burden then switches to the debtor/defendant to demonstrate that the right to enforce the debt belongs with someone else, and even such evidence only switches the burden of proof back to the plaintiff to justify their right to collect on the debt.

Eighty-six year old husband married a fifty-two year old wife, and they lived together for a whopping ten days after the wedding.  Seventy-seven days later, the husband brought an action to dissolve the marriage.  The wife filed a pro se appearance, and participated in the first day of proceedings, but did not return to Court for follow-up proceedings.  The Court rendered a judgment of dissolution, and found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

In addition to multiple failed appeals, the now ex-wife filed a motion to open the judgment and/or grant a new trial.  When those requests were denied, she filed an appeal of those efforts.  The Appellate Court simply adopted the Trial Court’s reasons for denying a motion to open and a petition for a new trial.  The underlying Trial Court decisions are attached as Exhibits.  (If you can’t sleep some night, feel free to read those attached decisions outlining multiple appeals, multiple motions, and multiple efforts to delay the prosecution of the dissolution action, etc.)

[I do like the ending of the Trial Court’s Decision however, which noted the point in law that, In considering a petition for a new trial, Trial Judges must give first consideration to the proposition that there must be an end to the litigation.  The Trial Court ended saying, “The time has come for this dissolution action to end.”]

  • AC37028 - Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction
  • AC36952 - King v. Commissioner of Correction

The facts and holdings of any case may be redacted, paraphrased or condensed for ease of reading.  No summary can be an exact rendering of any decision, however, so interested readers are referred to the full decisions.  The docket number of each case is a hyperlink to the Connecticut Judicial Department online slip opinion.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pullman & Comley, LLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pullman & Comley, LLC
Contact
more
less

Pullman & Comley, LLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.