L & V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.
The defendant1 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 *664agent.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…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Beckenstein v. Potter & Carrier, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Botticello v. StefanoviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- McLaughlin v. Chicken Delight, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Mullen v. HortonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences, Inc. v. Connecticut Constitution Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cefaratti v. AranowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
- Ceferatti v. AranowConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014
- Kim Chai Mock v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · 2013
- Tiplady v. MarylesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
- Tirreno v. The HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015