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.
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 ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at https://rumble.com/v79hhg6-admit-to-crime-and-be-ready-to-do-the-time.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
