Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 May 2000 |
Docket Number | (SC 16120) |
Citation | 252 Conn. 789,749 A.2d 1144 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | NANCY HOSKINS v. TITAN VALUE EQUITIES GROUP, INC., ET AL. |
Officially released May 4, 20001.
Borden, Katz, Vertefeuille, Callahan and Pellegrino, JS. Francis A. Miniter, with whom was Christine E. Corriveau, legal intern, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Daniel L. Schwartz, for the appellees (defendants).
The plaintiff, Nancy Hoskins, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Titan Value Equities Group, Inc. (Titan), and Ellen Lefferts Schowalter.2 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, in granting the defendants' motion on all three counts of the plaintiffs amended complaint, improperly concluded that the third count of the plaintiff's complaint,3 alleging a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, was barred by the three year statute of limitations for torts set forth in General Statutes § 52-577.4 She contends that the trial court wrongly characterized the cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as a tort rather than a claim in contract, which would be governed by the longer, six year statute of limitations under General Statutes § 52-576.5 We affirm the judgment of the trial court on the alternate ground that there was no contract for the rendering of investment advice between the plaintiff and Schowalter and, consequently, there was no basis for the implication of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The record reveals the following undisputed pertinent facts. In May and June, 1990, the plaintiff, who had recently become a widow, consulted with Schowalter, a licensed representative for Titan, a securities broker, for advice with respect to investing the proceeds of two life insurance policies of which the plaintiff was the beneficiary. Schowalter and the plaintiff met at least twice to discuss possible investments. At Schowalter's request, the plaintiff completed a "client data form," containing personal information and investment objectives. Schowalter provided the plaintiff, a practicing attorney for more than ten years, with information, including prospectuses, with respect to several limited partnership investments. On June 21, 1990, the plaintiff invested a total of $140,000 in seven limited partnerships recommended by Schowalter. The purchase of the investments was effected through various subscription agreements and order forms provided by Schowalter.
In early 1991, the plaintiff became concerned about the suitability of these investments. She consulted a financial planner, who advised her that the limited partnerships were not appropriate investments for her. After further consultations, the plaintiff concluded during the summer of 1991 that the investments were not suitable for her. She began selling her interests in the limited partnerships in early 1992. The plaintiff did not consult an attorney with respect to bringing an action against the defendants until early 1995, when this action was filed.
The gravamen of the plaintiffs amended complaint is that Schowalter recommended securities that were unsuitable for the plaintiffs needs and investment objectives. More specifically, in the third count of the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Schowalter breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to remain "faithful to the agreed common purpose of the parties...."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sherwood v. Danbury Hospital, 252 Conn. 193, 201, 746 A.2d 730 (2000). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Serrano v. Burns, 248 Conn. 419, 424, 727 A.2d 1276 (1999).
The defendants contend that there is no genuine issue of fact that a contract for the provision of investment advice did not exist between the parties and that, in the absence of such a contract, no duty of good faith and fair dealing could arise. They claim therefore that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree.
It is axiomatic that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is a covenant implied into a contract or a contractual relationship. See Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., 193 Conn. 558, 566, 479 A.2d 781 (1984); see also 2 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 205 (1979) (). "The covenant of good faith and fair dealing presupposes that the terms and purpose of the contract are agreed upon by the parties and that what is in dispute is a party's discretionary application or interpretation of a contract term." Neiditz v. Housing Authority, 43 Conn. Sup. 283, 294, 654 A.2d 812 (1994), aff d, 231 Conn. 598, 651 A.2d 1295 (1995). In accordance with these authorities, the existence of a contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants filed portions of the transcripts from two depositions of the plaintiff. At her first deposition, the plaintiff denied having any type of contract with Schowalter. At her second deposition, more than one year later, she again denied having entered into any contract with Schowalter, written or oral,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webster Bank v. Oakley
...there is support in the trial court record." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 794, 749 A.2d 1144 (2000). Nevertheless, our analysis herein is confined to the threshold question before both this court and the tr......
-
Im Partners v. Debit Direct Ltd.
...is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing." Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc. 252 Conn. 789, 793, 749 A.2d 1144 (Conn.2000). Therefore, this cause of action is dismissed as against Butterworth and Kelly without prejudice to III. CO......
-
Stuart v. Freiberg
...a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based”); see also Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789, 793–94, 749 A.2d 1144 (2000) (“[a] conclusory assertion ... does not constitute evidence sufficient to establish the existence of ......
-
American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins.
... ... in our decision in Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 243 Conn ... American Family Ins. Group, 555 S.W.2d 579, 581-82 (Ky.1977) (even when ... The persuasive value of these cases is limited, however, because they ... ...