Kus v. Irving
46 Conn. Super. Ct. 35, 46 Conn. Supp. 35, 736 A.2d 946 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Partners in a registered limited liability partnership (RLLP) are generally not liable for the debts, obligations, or liabilities arising from the actions of another partner unless the non-acting partners are directly responsible for their own negligence, wrongful acts, or misconduct, or had direct supervision or control over the offending partner.
Facts:
- Margaret Kus's deceased husband had a life insurance policy with a death benefit of $400,000.
- Attorney Charles J. Irving, a partner in the registered limited liability partnership (RLLP) Irving, Dubicki and Camassar, induced Margaret Kus to sign a fee agreement for collecting the life insurance proceeds.
- The fee agreement stipulated a 25% fee if collected before suit was filed and 33% if collected after suit was brought.
- Irving had already received the $400,000 death benefit but nevertheless filed suit, ostensibly to collect the higher 33% fee.
- Irving paid Margaret Kus $270,692.26 and took a fee of $135,365.63, which Kus claimed was $33,841.41 too high.
- Attorneys Narcy Z. Dubicki and Garon Camassar were partners with Irving in the RLLP.
- Dubicki and Camassar stated in affidavits that they had no personal knowledge of Irving's dealings with Kus until November 24, 1998, which was several days after the transaction between Irving and Kus concluded.
- Under the partnership agreement, Irving retained all fees for his activities and did not share any of them with Dubicki or Camassar.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Kus sued attorneys Charles J. Irving, Narcy Z. Dubicki, and Garon Camassar, partners in the firm of Irving, Dubicki and Camassar, in the Connecticut Superior Court.
- Defendants Dubicki and Camassar filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming no genuine issue of material fact regarding their liability and requesting judgment as a matter of law.
- Dubicki and Camassar supported their motion with affidavits stating they had no personal knowledge of the case or dealings between Irving and Kus until after the matter concluded, nor did they have supervision or control over Irving.
- Plaintiff Kus claimed Dubicki and Camassar were guilty of negligence, wrongful acts, misconduct, and violated rules of professional conduct, but produced no affidavit or other documents to support these claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does General Statutes § 34-327 protect partners in a registered limited liability partnership from liability for another partner's alleged misconduct when the partners seeking protection had no personal knowledge, direct supervision, or control over the misconduct, and did not share in the benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Hon. D. Michael Hurley
Yes, General Statutes § 34-327 protects partners Dubicki and Camassar from liability for their partner Irving's alleged misconduct. The court found that Dubicki and Camassar are protected by General Statutes § 34-327(c), which states that a partner in a registered limited liability partnership is generally not liable for obligations chargeable to the partnership or another partner. While subsection (d) provides an exception for a partner's own negligence, wrongful acts, or misconduct, or that of someone under their direct supervision or control, Dubicki and Camassar submitted sworn affidavits denying any personal knowledge of the dealings, supervision, or control over Irving. The plaintiff, Kus, failed to produce any affidavits or other documents to support her claims of negligence, wrongful acts, or misconduct against Dubicki and Camassar, or to refute their assertions. The court also determined that § 34-327(d) supersedes Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in cases where there is no direct supervision or control. Given that Dubicki and Camassar shared no benefit from Irving's fee, lacked direct supervision or control, and only gained knowledge of the matter after the funds were distributed, they are protected from liability.
Analysis:
This case underscores the significant protection afforded to partners in a Registered Limited Liability Partnership (RLLP) by statute, shielding them from vicarious liability for the independent misconduct of a co-partner. It highlights the critical importance of presenting evidentiary support, such as counter-affidavits, to challenge sworn statements in a motion for summary judgment; mere assertions by the plaintiff are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The ruling also clarifies that statutory protections like those found in General Statutes § 34-327 can supersede broader professional conduct rules when specific conditions, such as lack of supervision or control, are met, thereby limiting the scope of partner responsibility for acts they did not personally engage in, oversee, or benefit from.
