Stuart v. Freiberg, 116 A.3d 1195

Stuart plaintiffs allege fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and accounting malpractice by Freiberg, the executor’s accountant for the estate.
Dispute arises from Freiberg’s accounting during Kenneth Stuart’s control of the estate, including two versions of statements and a fictitious $490,755 credit.
Plaintiffs contend Freiberg forwarded estate financial statements to them and discussed finances with them, implying intended beneficiary status and reliance.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Freiberg; the Appellate Court affirmed, and the dissent argues genuine issues of material fact remain.
Dempsey, a CPA, opined that accounting records fell short of professional standards, including dual statements and unrecorded transactions.
The dissent emphasizes that reasonable reliance and causation are questions for the jury and that beneficiaries may recover when an accountant negligently serves an estate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on fraud claims	Stuart plaintiffs relied on statements and the fictitious credit to claim fraud.	Majority found no reliance showing; no issue for trial.	Genuine issues exist; trial needed
Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on negligent misrepresentation	Reliance was reasonable based on statements and discussions with Freiberg.	No direct contact or reliance shown beyond pleadings.	Genuine issues exist; trial needed
Whether the accounting malpractice claim survives summary judgment	Affidavits show Breach of standard of care and causal damages.	No corroborating evidence of malpractice presented.	Genuine issues exist; trial needed
Whether plaintiffs were intended or foreseeable beneficiaries owed duty to	Defendant acted for estate benefiting beneficiaries; statements forwarded to plaintiffs.	No duty to non-clients established.	Duty to beneficiaries recognized; issues for trial
Whether causation and foreseeability are questions for the jury	Foreseeable harm from misstatements and commingling; damages shown by affidavits.	Causation should be resolved on summary judgment if no factual basis.	Causation and foreseeability are jury questions

Krawczyk v. Stingle, 208 Conn. 239 (1988) (intent to benefit beneficiaries expands liability to non-clients)
Stewart v. Cendant Mobility Services Corp., 267 Conn. 96 (2003) (forbearance can prove reliance; reliance may be proven circumstantially)
Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559 (1995) (reasonableness of reliance is a jury question)
Coppola Construction Co. v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 247 Conn. 597 (1999) (reasonableness of reliance is a jury question; absence of special relation not per se bar)
Iacurci v. Sax, 313 Conn. 786 (2014) (summary judgment burden-shifting and favorable view for nonmovant)
Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (2012) (proximate causation generally fact-specific for the jury)