L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Grp., Inc.
Decision Date | 10 July 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 33099.,33099. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | L AND V CONTRACTORS, LLC v. HERITAGE WARRANTY INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC., et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph C. Merschman, with whom was Erika L. Amarante, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.).
Michael T. Petela, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Angelo Cicchiello, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
ROBINSON, ESPINOSA and BISHOP, Js.
The defendant 1 AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. (AAMCO), appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding AAMCO vicariously liable to the plaintiff, L & V Contractors, LLC, for the actions of Drive Train Unlimited, LLC (Drive Train). On appeal, AAMCO contends that the court erred in determining that (1) Drive Train was an agent of AAMCO and (2) Drive Train had apparent authority to act as AAMCO's agent.2 We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of AAMCO's claims. The plaintiff purchased a 2002 GMC Savannah van (vehicle) in February, 2003. The plaintiff, at that time, also bought an extended warranty for the vehicle through Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. (Heritage). In December, 2007, the transmission in the vehicle failed, and the plaintiff brought the vehicle to Crowley Chevrolet to be repaired. Heritage would not pay Crowley Chevrolet's rates, so it had the vehicle transported to Drive Train in East Hartford, which was owned at that time by Gary Gross and Michael Corrigan.3 Heritage authorized Drive Train to examine the transmission; however, it refused to pay for the transmission to be repaired.
Alejandro Leone, a member of the plaintiff, received a letter from Gross, dated January 21, 2008, which stated: A few days later, Leone went to Drive Train to speak with Gross about the letter and to inform Gross that he was trying to work things out with Heritage.
Leone received another letter from Gross dated March 11, 2008. That letter stated: Leone then authorized Drive Train to repair the vehicle's transmission. In June, 2008, after not hearing from Drive Train, Leone went to check on the progress of the transmission work and was informed by Gross that the vehicle had been sold.4
After the plaintiff left the vehicle with Drive Train, Gross added approximately nine hundred miles to the vehicle's mileage. In July, 2008, Gross drove the vehicle from East Hartford to Woodbridge on at least eight occasions to “loosen a knock in the engine.” In response to a request for admission, Gross admitted that he used the vehicle for personal use.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the present action on December 18, 2008,5 asserting counts against Heritage,6 Drive Train and AAMCO. The plaintiff alleged statutory theft under General Statutes § 52–564, conversion, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42–110a et seq., fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation against Drive Train and AAMCO. The claims against AAMCO stemmed from the plaintiff's contention in its complaint that “[a]t all times mentioned herein, [Drive Train] was the agent, servant and/ or employee of [AAMCO] and was acting within the scope of its agency and/or employment with [AAMCO].” Drive Train filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff seeking the cost of breaking down the transmission for inspection, the cost of repairing the transmission and storage fees.
A one day trial was held on October 26, 2010. The court concluded that Drive Train was an agent of AAMCO and that AAMCO was vicariously liable for Drive Train's actions. The court concluded that “Drive Train's torts occurred within the scope of AAMCO's employment of Drive Train and was done to further AAMCO's business.” The court found that Drive Train had actual authority to act on AAMCO's behalf as
The court also determined that Drive Train had apparent authority to act for AAMCO. The court stated, The court further determined that because AAMCO advertises that it has a distributor in East Hartford, the general public “had a right to rely on the expertise and high reputation of AAMCO in deciding whether or not to have the transmission repaired at Drive Train.” The court thereafter found in favor of the plaintiff as to each of its claims against Drive Train. AAMCO filed a motion to reargue, which was denied by the court. This appeal followed.
On appeal, AAMCO contends that the court erred in determining that Drive Train was its agent or had apparent authority to bind AAMCO for its actions. It is well settled that (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) LeBlanc v. New England Raceway, LLC, 116 Conn.App. 267, 273–74, 976 A.2d 750 (2009).
“The burden of proving agency is on the party asserting its existence.” Lee v. Duncan, 88 Conn.App. 319, 324, 870 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902, 876 A.2d 12 (2005). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hollister v. Thomas, 110 Conn.App. 692, 706, 955 A.2d 1212, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 956, 961 A.2d 419 (2008).
We begin with AAMCO's claim that the court erred in determining that Drive Train was its agent. AAMCO contends that the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence on the issue of AAMCO's control of Drive Train. Accordingly, AAMCO asserts that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was an agency relationship between Drive Train and AAMCO. We agree.
The plaintiff introduced no evidence that demonstrated that AAMCO controlled any part of the business of Drive Train. The only evidence presented that relates to the relationship between AAMCO and Drive Train is that Drive Train and AAMCO have an agreement, whereby, in exchange for the use of AAMCO's name, Drive Train pays approximately 7 percent of its sales to AAMCO for advertisements. The mere fact that there was an agreement that allowed for Drive Train to use AAMCO's name is not evidence that it exercised any control over Drive Train's operations. See McLaughlin v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 164 Conn. 317, 324, 321 A.2d 456 (1973) ( ). A necessary element of demonstrating that there is a principal and agent relationship is to show that the principal is in control. See Hollister v. Thomas, supra, 110 Conn.App. at 706, 955 A.2d 1212. The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that AAMCO controls Drive Train in any relevant manner.
The plaintiff asserts that AAMCO 7 The plaintiff fails to recognize, however, that the burden rests with the party seeking to prove that an agency relationship exists. See Lee v. Duncan, supra, 88 Conn.App. at 324, 870 A.2d 1. AAMCO...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cefaratti v. Aranow
...on her belief that that was the case. Relying on the Appellate Court's decision in L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 136 Conn. App. 662, 47 A.3d 887 (2012), the trial court concluded that the doctrine of apparent agency has not been recognized in t......
-
Cefaratti v. Aranow
...on her belief that that was the case. Relying on the Appellate Court's decision in L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 136 Conn.App. 662, 47 A.3d 887 (2012), the trial court concluded that the doctrine of apparent agency has not been recognized in th......
-
Cefaratti v. Aranow
...the hospital and Aranow. The plaintiff contends that the court improperly relied on L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 136 Conn.App. 662, 670, 47 A.3d 887 (2012), for the proposition that the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to impose t......
-
Loughery v. Future Century Limousine, LLC
...who was harmed by the tortious conduct of a person held out as the principal's agent." L and V Contractors, LLC v Heritage Warranty Ins. Risk Retention Group, Inc., 136 Conn. App. 662, 669 (2012); see also Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn. App. 17, 31 (2001) (apparent authority "theor......
-
Tort Developments in 2012
...reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.[276] --------- Notes: [*] Of New Haven Bar. [1] 136 Conn.App. 662, 663, 47 A.3d 887 (2012). [2] Id. at 665. [3] Id. [4] Id. at 667. [5] Id. at 667-68. [6] Id. at 668. [7] Id. [8] Id. at 669. [9] Id. [10]......
-
Business Litigation: 2012 in Review
...at 745-46. [59] Id. at 748. [60] Id. at 750. [61] Id. [62] Id. at 754. [63] Id. [64] Id. [65] Id. at 756-57. [66] Id. at 758-765. [67] 136 Conn.App. 662, 47 A.3d 887 (2012). [68] Id. at 665. [69] Id. [70] Id. at 668. [71] Id. [72] Id. at 666. [73] Id. at 668. [74] Id. at 669 (emphasis added......