apparent authority doctrine in Connecticut

1998Under that doctrine a principal may be held liable for an obligation incurred by an agent even if the principal has not expressly authorized the agent to incur the obligation if "the principal held the agent out to the public as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the particular act in question, or knowingly permitted him to act as having such authority . . . ." Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357 (1915). "`Apparent authority must be derived not from the acts of the agent but from the acts of his principal. [T]he acts of the principal must be such that (1) the principal held the agen

1993(Finding #10) The fact-finder quite clearly did not decide the issue on the basis of the doctrine of apparent authority, see Lettieri v. American Savings Bank, 182 Conn. 1 (1980).

2016Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Longshore Beach & Country Club, Inc., supra, 127 Conn. at 497 , 18 A.2d 347 , citing Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc., 124 Conn. 105 , 111, 197 A. 884 (1938), and Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357, 94 A. 288 (1915).

1994Connecticut has long recognized the doctrine of apparent authority Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357 ; Beckenstein v. Potter Carrier, Inc., 191 Conn. 120 , 140 (1983), of Trinity Rent-A-Car, 4 Conn. Ar. 404, 406 (1967).

2016Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Longshore Beach & Country Club, Inc., supra, 127 Conn. at 497 , 18 A.2d 347 , citing Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc., 124 Conn. 105 , 111, 197 A. 884 (1938), and Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357, 94 A. 288 (1915).

2016Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Longshore Beach & Country Club, Inc., supra, 127 Conn. at 497 , 18 A.2d 347 , citing Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc., 124 Conn. 105 , 111, 197 A. 884 (1938), and Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357, 94 A. 288 (1915).

2016State v. Buie, 129 Conn. App. 777, 789 , 21 A.3d 550 (2011), aff’d, 312 Conn. 574 , 94 A.3d 608 (2014), raised the question of whether a warrantless search based on the consent of a third party under the apparent authority doctrine, although permissible under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, was nonetheless barred under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution.

2016State v. Buie, 129 Conn. App. 777, 789 , 21 A.3d 550 (2011), aff’d, 312 Conn. 574 , 94 A.3d 608 (2014), raised the question of whether a warrantless search based on the consent of a third party under the apparent authority doctrine, although permissible under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, was nonetheless barred under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

1993Under the doctrine of apparent authority, "the acts of the principal must be such that (1) the principal held the agent out as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the act in question, or knowingly permitted him to act as having such authority, and (2) in consequence thereof the person dealing with the agent, acting in good faith, reasonably believed, under all the circumstances, that the agent had the necessary authority." (Citations omitted.) Id., 69 ; Munson v. United Technologies Corp., 28 Conn. App. 184 , 188-89 , 609 A.2d 1066 (1992). "`Apparent authority is that semblance of autho

1993Under the doctrine of apparent authority, "the acts of the principal must be such that (1) the principal held the agent out as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the act in question, or knowingly permitted him to act as having such authority, and (2) in consequence thereof the person dealing with the agent, acting in good faith, reasonably believed, under all the circumstances, that the agent had the necessary authority." (Citations omitted.) Id., 69 ; Munson v. United Technologies Corp., 28 Conn. App. 184 , 188-89 , 609 A.2d 1066 (1992). "`Apparent authority is that semblance of autho

1997"It is a general rule of law that the principal in a principal/agent relationship is only bound by, and liable for, the acts which his agent does with or within the actual or apparent authority from the principal, and within the scope of the agent's employment." (Emphasis added: internal quotation marks omitted.) Newton Associates v. Northeast Structures, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 633 , 637-38 , 546 A.2d 310 (1988).

1997"It is a general rule of law that the principal in a principal/agent relationship is only bound by, and liable for, the acts which his agent does with or within the actual or apparent authority from the principal, and within the scope of the agent's employment." (Emphasis added: internal quotation marks omitted.) Newton Associates v. Northeast Structures, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 633 , 637-38 , 546 A.2d 310 (1988).

1994Connecticut has long recognized the doctrine of apparent authority Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357 ; Beckenstein v. Potter Carrier, Inc., 191 Conn. 120 , 140 (1983), of Trinity Rent-A-Car, 4 Conn. Ar. 404, 406 (1967).

1993Under the doctrine of apparent authority, "the acts of the principal must be such that (1) the principal held the agent out as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the act in question, or knowingly permitted him to act as having such authority, and (2) in consequence thereof the person dealing with the agent, acting in good faith, reasonably believed, under all the circumstances, that the agent had the necessary authority." (Citations omitted.) Id., 69 ; Munson v. United Technologies Corp., 28 Conn. App. 184 , 188-89 , 609 A.2d 1066 (1992). "`Apparent authority is that semblance of autho

1993"Courts have developed the doctrine of apparent authority `to protect under proper circumstances, a third person in his dealings with an agent who lacks express authority.'" Edart Truck Rental Corporation, 23 Conn. App. 137 , 140 , 579 A.2d 133 (1990), citing Keeler v. General Products, Inc., 137 Conn. 247 , 251 , 75 A.2d 486 (1950).

1993"Courts have developed the doctrine of apparent authority `to protect under proper circumstances, a third person in his dealings with an agent who lacks express authority.'" Edart Truck Rental Corporation, 23 Conn. App. 137 , 140 , 579 A.2d 133 (1990), citing Keeler v. General Products, Inc., 137 Conn. 247 , 251 , 75 A.2d 486 (1950).

1993"Courts have developed the doctrine of apparent authority `to protect under proper circumstances, a third person in his dealings with an agent who lacks express authority.'" Edart Truck Rental Corporation, 23 Conn. App. 137 , 140 , 579 A.2d 133 (1990), citing Keeler v. General Products, Inc., 137 Conn. 247 , 251 , 75 A.2d 486 (1950).

1993"Courts have developed the doctrine of apparent authority `to protect under proper circumstances, a third person in his dealings with an agent who lacks express authority.'" Edart Truck Rental Corporation, 23 Conn. App. 137 , 140 , 579 A.2d 133 (1990), citing Keeler v. General Products, Inc., 137 Conn. 247 , 251 , 75 A.2d 486 (1950).

2016Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Longshore Beach & Country Club, Inc., supra, 127 Conn. at 497 , 18 A.2d 347 , citing Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc., 124 Conn. 105 , 111, 197 A. 884 (1938), and Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357, 94 A. 288 (1915).

2016Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Longshore Beach & Country Club, Inc., supra, 127 Conn. at 497 , 18 A.2d 347 , citing Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc., 124 Conn. 105 , 111, 197 A. 884 (1938), and Quint v. O'Connell, 89 Conn. 353 , 357, 94 A. 288 (1915).

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Specifically, the Appellate Court concluded in the present case that Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App. 759 , 771, 700 A.2d 1377 (1997), and Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 , cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001), must be interpreted as having "held that the facts of those cases did not justify the imposition of vicarious liability" under the doctrine of apparent authority, thereby implying that this court has recognized the doctrine.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Specifically, the Appellate Court concluded in the present case that Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App. 759 , 771, 700 A.2d 1377 (1997), and Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 , cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001), must be interpreted as having "held that the facts of those cases did not justify the imposition of vicarious liability" under the doctrine of apparent authority, thereby implying that this court has recognized the doctrine.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016Risk Retention Group, Inc., supra, 136 Conn.App. at 670 , 47 A.3d 887 ("the doctrine of apparent authority cannot be used to hold a principal liable for the tortious actions of its alleged agent"); Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 63 Conn.App. 17 , 31, 774 A.2d 1063 ("the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or apparent authority ... is not a viable ground on which to premise liability against a defendant sued for the torts of an alleged agent" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. granted, 256 Conn. 926 , 776 A.2d 1143 (2001) (appeal withdrawn October 18, 2001); Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App.

2016In Cefaratti v. Aranow, 321 Conn. 593 , 609, 141 A.3d 752 (2016), our Supreme Court recently held that "both the doctrine of apparent authority and the doctrine of apparent agency may be applied in tort actions." The Supreme Court specifically stated: "[W]e adopt the following alternative standards for establishing apparent agency in tort cases.

2016In Cefaratti v. Aranow, 321 Conn. 593 , 609, 141 A.3d 752 (2016), our Supreme Court recently held that "both the doctrine of apparent authority and the doctrine of apparent agency may be applied in tort actions." The Supreme Court specifically stated: "[W]e adopt the following alternative standards for establishing apparent agency in tort cases.

2015See Dagastino v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass. App. 456, 458, 754 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (‘‘[i]n short, the doctrine of apparent authority does not apply to the government, its agencies, or its officials’’); Sinclair v. Bow, 125 N.H. 388 , 391–92, 480 A.2d 173 (1984) (holding local governments as excluded from application of doctrine of apparent authority); Zanesville v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 97 App. Div. 2d 64, 66, 468 N.Y.S.2d 271 (1983) (‘‘[t]hose dealing with officers or agents of municipal corporations must at their peril see to it that such officers or agents are acting within th

2015See Dagastino v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass. App. 456, 458, 754 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (‘‘[i]n short, the doctrine of apparent authority does not apply to the government, its agencies, or its officials’’); Sinclair v. Bow, 125 N.H. 388 , 391–92, 480 A.2d 173 (1984) (holding local governments as excluded from application of doctrine of apparent authority); Zanesville v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 97 App. Div. 2d 64, 66, 468 N.Y.S.2d 271 (1983) (‘‘[t]hose dealing with officers or agents of municipal corporations must at their peril see to it that such officers or agents are acting within th

2015See Dagastino v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass. App. 456, 458, 754 N.E.2d 150 (2001) (‘‘[i]n short, the doctrine of apparent authority does not apply to the government, its agencies, or its officials’’); Sinclair v. Bow, 125 N.H. 388 , 391–92, 480 A.2d 173 (1984) (holding local governments as excluded from application of doctrine of apparent authority); Zanesville v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 97 App. Div. 2d 64, 66, 468 N.Y.S.2d 271 (1983) (‘‘[t]hose dealing with officers or agents of municipal corporations must at their peril see to it that such officers or agents are acting within th

2015Brennan Construction Corporation Inc. v. Shelton, 187 Conn. 695 , 708–710, 448 A.2d 180 (1982), but chose to resolve the case on other grounds.

2015Brennan Construction Corporation Inc. v. Shelton, 187 Conn. 695 , 708–710, 448 A.2d 180 (1982), but chose to resolve the case on other grounds.

2014See 1 Restatement (Second), Agency § 267, pp. 578–79 (1958); see also Mehlman v. Powell, 281 Md. 269 , 272–75, 378 A.2d 1121 (1977); Sanders v. Rowan, 61 Md.

2014State v. Buie, 303 Conn. 903 , 31 A.3d 1179 (2011).

2014State v. Buie, 303 Conn. 903 , 31 A.3d 1179 (2011).

2011The case law from Hawaii, Montana and Washington, therefore, is not persuasive. *802 In State v. Carsey, 295 Or. 32 , 664 P.2d 1085 (1983), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the apparent authority doctrine; however, it did so seven years before the United States Supreme Court decided Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, 497 U.S. 177 .

2011The case law from Hawaii, Montana and Washington, therefore, is not persuasive. *802 In State v. Carsey, 295 Or. 32 , 664 P.2d 1085 (1983), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the apparent authority doctrine; however, it did so seven years before the United States Supreme Court decided Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, 497 U.S. 177 .