Skip to Content



Robert Laurie and Heather McCoy Recently Obtained Summary Judgment in Favor of an Attorney and Insurance Company Accused of Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Blogs, Insurance Coverage

Kenneson v. Eggert, et al., No. CV145016613-S (Conn. Supp. Ct., Dec. 1, 2015). The plaintiff claimed that defendants misled her into signing a release which gave up her rights of reallocation with respect to an insured who was a defendant in an underlying litigation. The court agreed with defendants’ argument that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded plaintiff from bringing the fraudulent misrepresentation action against defendants because the judge in the underlying litigation had already denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen that case upon a finding that she was not coerced into signing the release and that she voluntarily gave up all rights against the underlying defendant. In addition, the court noted that even if collateral estoppel were deemed improper, defendants are still entitled to summary judgment because the defendant attorney was under no duty to provide plaintiff with legal advice, and therefore, did not breach any duty to plaintiff by not explaining to her that signing the release would cause her to forfeit her right to reallocate against the underlying defendant.