L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc.
136 Conn. App. 662
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff L&V Contractors sued Heritage, Drive Train Unlimited, and AAMCO Transmissions over a 2002 GMC Savannah transmission failure.
- Heritage authorized Drive Train to examine the transmission but would not pay for repairs.
- Drive Train, East Hartford, was owned by Gross and Corrigan; plaintiff alleges it acted for AAMCO.
- Leone authorized Drive Train to repair after a March 11, 2008 letter; vehicle sold in 2008.
- Trial court found Drive Train was AAMCO’s agent with actual authority and apparent authority.
- AAMCO appealed challenging both actual/apparent agency and the vicarious liability finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Drive Train AAMCO’s agent? | L&V contends Drive Train acted as AAMCO’s agent. | AAMCO argues no agency existed. | Agency not proven; trial court erred. |
| Did Drive Train have actual authority to act for AAMCO? | Drive Train had actual authority via agreement to use AAMCO’s name and revenue sharing. | No evidence of control; burden on plaintiff; no actual authority. | No actual authority; finding clearly erroneous. |
| Did Drive Train have apparent authority to bind AAMCO? | Use of AAMCO letterhead letters created apparent authority. | Apparent authority not viable to bind principal for torts in Connecticut. | Apparent authority cannot support liability; reversed on this ground. |
| Should the judgment be reversed and entered for AAMCO? | Court should affirm vicarious liability against AAMCO. | No agency or apparent authority; judgment should be for AAMCO. | Judgment reversed; entry of judgment in favor of AAMCO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollister v. Thomas, 110 Conn. App. 692 (Conn. App. 2008) (defines the three elements of agency)
- Beckenstein v. Potter & Carrier, Inc., 191 Conn. 120 (Conn. 1983) (apparent authority analysis framework)
- Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn. App. 759 (Conn. App. 1997) (apparent authority not applied to hold principal liable for agent’s torts in Connecticut)
- Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn. App. 17 (Conn. App. 2001) (reaffirmed limits on apparent authority for tort liability)
- Lee v. Duncan, 88 Conn. App. 319 (Conn. App. 2005) (burden on plaintiff to prove agency)
- McLaughlin v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 164 Conn. 317 (Conn. 1973) (franchise evidence alone insufficient to prove agency)