PARNOFF v. Mooney
132 Conn. App. 512
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Parnoff and Mooney, two attorneys, disputed representation of the same client, Yuille, on overlapping matters.
- Mooney represented Yuille in workers’ compensation matters and anticipated bad-faith claims against the hospital; Parnoff later took on a wrongful discharge claim.
- A misunderstanding existed over the scope of Parnoff’s representation, with Yuille and Mooney each believing different claims would be pursued.
- Parnoff filed a wrongful discharge claim in November 1998, alleging retaliation; Mooney later filed a bad-faith administration claim on Yuille’s behalf in 2002.
- Arbitration in 2004 resulted in a substantial award for Yuille on the bad-faith claim, and the panel did not specify the time period of the award; Mooney sought clarification but was told it required a request from Parnoff.
- The plaintiff then sued Mooney for interference with a contract and related claims; Mooney counterclaimed for quantum meruit; the trial court entered judgment for Mooney after a nine-day trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference with a contract claim—whether the trial court should have directed a verdict | Parnoff argues the court should have directed a verdict and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict | Mooney contends the evidence supports the verdict and the issue was not clearly erroneous | Claim reviewed but not considered due to inadequate briefing; court declines to review |
| Punitive damages for intentional interference with a contract | Parnoff seeks punitive damages if the interference claim stands | Mooney asserts this issue depends on reversal of the interference claim | Not addressed on merits due to not reversing the interference claim (procedural stance) |
| Quantum meruit counterclaim—whether there was sufficient evidence of an implied contract and benefit to Parnoff | Parnoff contends no sufficient evidence of benefit or implied contract | Mooney asserts evidence supports a benefit and an implied in law contract | Sufficient evidence existed; trial court properly denied directed verdict and JNOV; quantum meruit upheld for Mooney |
Key Cases Cited
- Paoletta v. Anchor Reef Club at Branford, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 402 (2010) (adequate briefing required; mere citation is insufficient)
- Mundell v. Mundell, 110 Conn.App. 466 (2008) (analysis required; inadequate briefing rejected on appeal)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390 (2001) (implied contract may be in law or in fact; restitution principles applied)
- Macchietto v. Keggi, 103 Conn.App. 769 (2007) (directed verdict standard; jury could have reached only one conclusion)
- Stewart v. King, 121 Conn.App. 64 (2010) (quantum meruit requires factual examination by trier of fact)
- Bershtein, Bershtein & Bershtein, P.C. v. Nemeth, 221 Conn. 236 (1992) (equitable basis for quasi-contracts; conduct and circumstances determine entitlement)