DE FACTO PARTNERSHIP AFFIRMED
Implied In Fact Contract Can Only Exist However Where There Is No Express One
Post number 5311
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gPHyfRec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRjMfgBj and at https://lnkd.in/gicdXhap, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Ronald Daigneault v. Danielle Kolashuk et al., No. AC 47259, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (March 24, 2026) Daigneault, owned and operated an auto repair business for approximately twenty-eight years. During this period, he and his daughter, the defendant D (Danielle Kolashuk), jointly operated the business. D’s husband owned Auto Magic, LLC (“A Co.”), which periodically stored towed vehicles on the business property. Disputes arose regarding the nature of the business relationship between the plaintiff and D, the use of business accounts, and payment for vehicle storage.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ronald The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for, among other things, statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty. Danielle, according to the trial court, “used the Superior Auto accounts as her own piggy bank . . . .”
The trial court, however, found that she, “as a joint holder of those accounts and her father’s de facto partner, and knowing that her father did so . . . reasonably believed that she, too, had the right to do so . . . .”
LEGAL ISSUES
The case involved claims of statutory theft under Connecticut law and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court was required to determine whether a de facto partnership existed between the plaintiff and D, and to resolve issues relating to joint account ownership and alleged oral agreements for vehicle storage.
1. Whether the trial court properly found the existence of a de facto partnership between the plaintiff and D.
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that joint account holders are joint owners of the account.
3. Whether there was an enforceable oral agreement requiring A Co. to pay for storage of vehicles on the business property.
Whether the trial court’s findings justified judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims for statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the trial court’s finding of a de facto partnership, arguing that the evidence did not support such a conclusion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found ample support for the trial court’s determination that a partnership existed, noting the lengthy joint operation of the business and the conduct of the parties. The court emphasized that the finding was not clearly erroneous.
With respect to implied in fact contracts, the courts have recognized that whether a contract is styled express or implied involves no difference in legal effect but lies merely in the mode of manifesting assent. A true implied in fact contract can only exist however where there is no express one. It is one which is inferred from the conduct of the parties though not expressed in words.
The judgment was affirmed. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims, as well as the judgment for the named defendant on the counterclaim. The court’s analysis rested on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the existence of a de facto partnership and the procedural inadequacy of the plaintiff’s briefing on other issues.
ZALMA OPINION
When I was young my father tried to teach me that it was important to support the family. He tried, and failed with regard to one family member who insulted him, but otherwise always supported family. The litigation and relationships in this case teaches what happens when families don’t support each other only to have a court find an implied partnership that resolved the dispute without either party being happy.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
