Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C.
87 A.3d 534
Conn.2014Background
- Meyers sued Livingston firm for breach of contract alleging the firm pursued Thibodeau’s interests and did not follow Meyers’ instructions in the prior lawsuit.
- The firm represented both Meyers and Thibodeau in a single action against common defendants; a settlement was reached December 14, 1999 and reviewed in open court.
- Meyers signed a settlement and release February 25, 2000; the firm collected fees and paid the balance to Meyers.
- The complaint was filed February 21, 2006; the firm moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was tortious (malpractice) or, alternatively, contract-based with a six-year limitations period.
- The trial court initially ruled the action was contract-based but later granted summary judgment, concluding the claim sounded in tort and was time-barred; the appellate court agreed that the claim sounded in legal malpractice.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the allegations sound in legal malpractice (not contract) and are barred by the three-year statute of limitations)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint sound in contract or malpractice? | Meyers argues breach of contract based on duties and instructions. | The firm argues the claim is legal malpractice, not contract. | Sounded in legal malpractice. |
| If contract, is the six-year limitations period applicable? | Meyers asserts six-year contract claim accrues later. | The action belongs to contract time only if properly pleaded as such. | Not applicable; malpractice governs. |
| Is the claim barred by statute of limitations? | She argues within six years for contract claims. | Three-year tort limitations applies. | Barred by three-year limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194, 441 A.2d 81 (1981) (tort within contractual relationship allowed; breach of duty vs contract terms)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 263 (2001) (tort arising from contract; breach of duty imposed by law)
- Weiner v. Clinton, 106 Conn. App. 379, 942 A.2d 469 (2008) (negligence tools; malpractice when failing to exercise due care)
- Hill v. Williams, 74 Conn. App. 654, 813 A.2d 130 (2003) (contract vs tort analysis in attorney actions)
- Mac’s Car City, Inc. v. DeNigris, 18 Conn. App. 525, 559 A.2d 712 (1989) (contractual representation vs failure to perform as breach of contract)