Supreme Court of Connecticut
Stuart v. Freiberg
May 19, 2015
Summary
This dissent would have affirmed the appellate judgment because the plaintiffs’ evidence created genuine issues of material fact concerning fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and accounting malpractice. It concludes that reliance, the reasonableness of reliance, causation, intended-beneficiary status, foreseeability, breach, and damages should have been resolved by a fact finder rather than on summary judgment. The dissent also would recognize that an accountant hired by an estate’s executor may owe duties to the estate’s beneficiaries under the circumstances presented.