Tirreno v. The Hartford
129 A.3d 735
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Mary Tirreno sued insurer The Hartford for underinsured motorist benefits and sought extra-contractual/punitive damages after a 2010 car accident.
- Counsel for the parties agreed in emails and orally to a "binding mediation": mediate first, and if no settlement, the mediator would decide a final damages number.
- Tirreno and counsel attended the mediation; it proceeded and the mediator issued a written decision awarding $75,000 net to Tirreno, which The Hartford paid by check.
- Tirreno later disavowed the settlement, fired her original counsel, and claimed she lacked mental (decisional) capacity to agree to binding mediation.
- The Hartford moved to enforce the settlement; the trial court granted the motion. Tirreno unsuccessfully moved to reargue and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tirreno lacked mental capacity to bind her to counsel's agreement for binding mediation | Tirreno: she lacked decisional capacity to authorize binding mediation/arbitration | Hartford: attorney had apparent and actual authority; client is bound by acts of counsel and Tirreno participated in mediation | Court: No error — counsel had authority; agreement enforceable; client bound by attorney's actions |
| Whether the procedure constituted arbitration requiring a written agreement under § 52-408 | Tirreno: the process was actually arbitration and no written arbitration agreement exists, so award unconfirmable | Hartford: parties agreed to a mediated process that would result in a binding mediator figure if no settlement; not statutory arbitration | Court: Not arbitration — no clear intent to arbitrate and parties treated it as mediation that could become binding; arbitration statutes not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP, 298 Conn. 495 (Court affirmed that clients are generally bound by acts of attorneys and apparent authority can bind client)
- Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (explains court's power to enforce settlement agreements and enter judgment)
- Kidder v. Read, 150 Conn. App. 720 (standard of review for enforcement of settlement where terms are clear)
- L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 136 Conn. App. 662 (discusses apparent authority and client participation validating counsel's authority)
- Harry Skolnick & Sons v. Heyman, 7 Conn. App. 175 (arbitration agreement requires clear and direct manifestation of intent)
- Rosenblit v. Laschever, 115 Conn. App. 282 (contract formation requires meeting of the minds; factual scope determined by trier)
- Glastonbury Education Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 234 Conn. 704 (describes med-arb process and differences from ordinary arbitration)