184 Conn. App. 318
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Carson (trustee) sued Allianz Life after its agent, David Faubert, allegedly persuaded her to surrender annuities and then converted $350,000; Faubert was arrested and confessed on March 22, 2005.
- Plaintiff originally filed suit in 2008; that action was dismissed for failure to prosecute in 2011. She refiled in 2012 under the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592).
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the original claims were time-barred under the three-year tort statute (§ 52-577) and could not be revived because any tolling theories fail.
- Plaintiff conceded her claims would be untimely absent tolling, and argued (1) fraudulent concealment by Faubert tolled the limitations period and (2) a continuing course of conduct (fiduciary/ special relationship) tolled the period.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Allianz, concluding plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue that the statute was tolled by fraudulent concealment or a continuing fiduciary duty; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations | Faubert fraudulently concealed facts; his concealment should toll limitations until discovery | Any concealment was Faubert’s alone; plaintiff must show actual knowledge by Allianz (imputed knowledge insufficient) | Held: No genuine issue — plaintiff failed to show Allianz had actual knowledge; concealment by Faubert does not toll against Allianz |
| Whether an agent’s fraudulent concealment can be imputed to Allianz to toll limitations | Allianz placed Faubert in position to commit fraud; Restatement §261/ apparent authority support imputation | Imputation for tolling requires the principal’s actual knowledge or approval; Sheltry (agency issues) doesn’t permit tolling here | Held: No — plaintiff failed to show Allianz actually knew or approved of concealment; imputation insufficient to toll |
| Whether the continuing course of conduct doctrine (fiduciary relationship) tolled limitations | Plaintiff argues a special/fiduciary relationship continued duties after the wrongful act, tolling § 52-577 | Relationship between insurer and insured is commercial, not fiduciary; no evidence of unique trust or later wrongful conduct by Allianz | Held: No genuine issue — plaintiff offered no evidence of fiduciary/special relationship with Allianz; doctrine doesn’t apply |
| Whether the refiling under § 52-592 revived time-barred claims | Plaintiff relied on § 52-592 to refile after dismissal for failure to prosecute | Even if § 52-592 permitted refiling, the underlying claims remain time-barred unless tolling applies | Held: § 52-592 allowed refiling proceduraly, but tolling theories failed so claims remained time-barred and summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartone v. Robert L. Day Co., 232 Conn. 527 (1995) (elements and standard for proving fraudulent concealment)
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (2007) (fraudulent concealment tolling and fiduciary nondisclosure)
- Flannery v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC, 312 Conn. 286 (2014) (summary judgment burdens and statute-of-limitations special-defense framework)
- Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620 (2002) (insurer–insured relationship characterized as commercial, not fiduciary)
- Stuart v. Snyder, 125 Conn. App. 506 (2010) (standard for proving fraudulent concealment at summary judgment)