Kenneson v. Eggert
170 A.3d 14
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kenneson (pro se) won jury verdicts against Altman ($67,556.07) and Rosati; Altman was insured by Nationwide, represented by Eggert (attorney for insurer).
- At a postverdict settlement conference, Kenneson accepted $67,000 from Nationwide/Altman and signed a general release and withdrawal; release recited she read it and no representations induced settlement.
- Kenneson later learned Rosati was insolvent/deceased and moved to open the judgment, alleging Eggert told her she had to sign the release to receive her award; Judge Pellegrino denied the motion to open (no coercion shown).
- Kenneson then sued Eggert and Nationwide for fraud (intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent nondisclosure). Defendants withheld certain communications as privileged; trial court denied discovery motions and found privilege not pierced.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing collateral estoppel, release terms, and that alleged statements were nonactionable opinions or sham; trial court granted summary judgment citing collateral estoppel and failure to prove fraud. Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed discovery rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intentional misrepresentation claim was barred by collateral estoppel | Kenneson: Judge Pellegrino did not decide the fraud claim (misrepresentation) at the motion to open hearing | Defendants: The prior hearing fully and necessarily decided the issue; claim precluded | Reversed as to this ground — genuine issue whether the misrepresentation issue was actually litigated and decided (collateral estoppel not established) |
| Whether alleged statement was actionable (statement of fact vs. opinion/future event) | Kenneson: Eggert’s statement could be reasonably understood as asserting an existing legal fact that she would not receive the award unless she signed release | Defendants: Statement was not about an existing fact (opinion/conditioned future event) and therefore not actionable | Reversed as to this ground — triable issue exists whether the statement could be construed as an assertion about current legal state of affairs (actionable) |
| Whether fraudulent nondisclosure claim can proceed absent fiduciary/duty relationship | Kenneson: Eggert had a duty to explain consequences (given plaintiff was pro se) | Defendants: No duty because Eggert represented the insured/adversary, not Kenneson | Affirmed — no genuine issue: no duty existed, so nondisclosure claim fails |
| Whether withheld communications were protected and privilege pierced by fraud claim | Kenneson: Privileged communications should be produced; fraud claim justifies piercing privilege | Defendants: Communications protected by attorney-client and work product doctrines; privilege not pierced | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; plaintiff offered no quantum of proof to pierce privilege; documents protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124 (2010) (elements of common-law fraud; distinction between negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (1991) (requirements for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33 (2005) (discussion whether opinions or future statements can constitute actionable misrepresentations)
- Crowther v. Guidone, 183 Conn. 464 (1981) (special-knowledge misrepresentation can be treated as statement of fact)
- Brown v. Otake, 164 Conn. App. 686 (2016) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence in plaintiff’s favor)
- Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (2012) (standard of review for discovery rulings; abuse of discretion)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 249 Conn. 36 (1999) (insured’s attorney-client privilege and common interest with insurer)