Kus v. Irving case brief summary
736 A.2d 946 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff claimed named defendant attorney filed a needless suit in order to collect a higher fee. Plaintiff sued named defendant and the other two partners in the firm. Defendant partners filed affidavits claiming they had no personal knowledge of the dealing between plaintiff and named defendant, had no control over named defendant, and that they were immune from liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court granted defendant partners' motion for summary judgment, finding there was no issue of material fact concerning plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant partners because plaintiff did not support her claims with any evidence. Defendant partners were not liable because they denied direct control over named defendant's actions and plaintiff failed to provide evidence to the contrary.Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
736 A.2d 946 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff brought this action against
defendant attorneys alleging that the named defendant needlessly
brought a lawsuit to collect death benefits under a life insurance
policy after the named defendant had already secured the limits of
the policy in order to secure a higher fee. Before the court was
defendant partners' motion for summary judgment.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff claimed named defendant attorney filed a needless suit in order to collect a higher fee. Plaintiff sued named defendant and the other two partners in the firm. Defendant partners filed affidavits claiming they had no personal knowledge of the dealing between plaintiff and named defendant, had no control over named defendant, and that they were immune from liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327.
DISCUSSION
- The court granted defendant partners' motion.
- Plaintiff's failure to support her claim that defendant partners were guilty of negligence and misconduct meant there was no issue of fact concerning those claims.
- Plaintiff's claims that defendant partners violated various sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct were not supported by affidavits.
- Even if there was evidence that defendant partners violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.1(a), (c) (Rules), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327(d) superseded the Rules except where the other person was under the partners' direct control.
- Defendant partners denied direct control of named defendant in their affidavits and thus were protected from liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327.
CONCLUSION
The court granted defendant partners' motion for summary judgment, finding there was no issue of material fact concerning plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant partners because plaintiff did not support her claims with any evidence. Defendant partners were not liable because they denied direct control over named defendant's actions and plaintiff failed to provide evidence to the contrary.Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
No comments:
Post a Comment