Murtha v. City of Hartford
303 Conn. 1
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Murtha, a Hartford police officer, was involved in a 2003 shooting and later acquitted of criminal charges arising from it.
- He was suspended without pay during administrative procedures following his arrest and charges.
- Murtha retained two attorneys, Keefe and Georgetti, under separate fee agreements to defend the criminal charges.
- Murtha sought indemnification under General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) § 53-39a for legal fees, lost wages, and lost employment benefits incurred during the prosecution.
- The trial court awarded Murtha $460,613.40 in attorney’s fees and also granted damages for lost wages and benefits; the contract with Keefe was found ambiguous and parol evidence was admitted to determine incurrence of fees.
- On appeal, Hartford challenged the fee award and several economic-loss issues, while Murtha relied on Nyenhuis v. M.D.C. to support the damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Keefe and Georgetti fees indemnifiable and properly determined as incurred? | Murtha incurred beyond the retainer; fees are reasonable. | Fees beyond the retainer were not necessarily incurred and may be excessive. | Yes; fees beyond the retainer were incurred and not clearly excessive. |
| Was parol evidence admissible to interpret the Keefe contract cueing ambiguity about fees? | Ambiguity warranted parol evidence to ascertain intent. | Contract language was unambiguous; parol evidence improperly considered. | Parol evidence properly admitted due to ambiguity. |
| Were economic-loss damages properly awarded under § 53-39a for the fees and related losses? | Nyenhuis controls; economic losses including fees and time lost are recoverable with nexus to prosecution. | Limitation or scope of § 53-39a precludes certain economic losses. | Yes; Nyenhuis controls and economic losses awarded were proper. |
| Did Nyenhuis also govern exhaustion of remedies and standing for employment-related claims under § 53-39a? | Administrative-exhaustion not required; claims cognizable as economic losses. | Exhaustion required and some claims may not qualify. | Not required; recovery allowed for cognizable economic losses. |
| Can lost wages and benefits be considered economic loss under § 53-39a when suspension stems from administrative proceedings? | Economic losses tied to the prosecution or its consequences are indemnifiable. | Administrative-proceeding suspensions should limit recoverable economic loss. | Yes; losses with nexus to the prosecution are indemnifiable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nyenhuis v. Metropolitan District Commission, 300 Conn. 708 (2011) (economic-loss damages and exhaustion issues under § 53-39a controlled)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (contract interpretation; ambiguity affects whether intent is a question of law or fact)
- 19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Co., 294 Conn. 611 (2010) (contract interpretation; ambiguity analysis and deference to trial court findings)
- Cantonbury Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Local Land Development, LLC, 273 Conn. 724 (2005) (contract interpretation and ambiguity; usage of ordinary meaning)
- Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P.C., 111 Conn.App. 287 (2009) (parol evidence admissible to explain ambiguity in incomplete writings)