Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences1996Co., 229 Conn. 359 , ___ A.2d ___ (1994), the Court applied New York law to an uninsured motorist claim brought by a Connecticut resident injured in an accident which occurred in New York even when New York law barred the insured from collecting uninsured motorist benefits which would have otherwise been available to him under Connecticut law. 1994Co. , 229 Conn. 359 (1994) (" Williams "); have indicated, without expressly holding, that tort choice of law principles should guide the court's analysis when evaluating an uninsured motorist claim brought by a Connecticut resident and arising out of personal injuries incurred in a foreign jurisdiction. 1 The decision in this case is likewise determined by reference to tort choice of law principles. | 1 | 3 |
Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.green2 sentences1996See Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 211 Conn. 133, 136 , 558 A.2d 966 (1989); Whitaker v. Gavit, 18 Conn. 522, 526 (1847). 1996See Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 211 Conn. 133, 136 , 558 A.2d 966 (1989); Whitaker v. Gavit, 18 Conn. 522, 526 (1847). | 1 | 1 |
Whitaker v. Gavitgreen1 sentence1996See Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 211 Conn. 133, 136 , 558 A.2d 966 (1989); Whitaker v. Gavit, 18 Conn. 522, 526 (1847). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2015In Bennett, in the context of an uninsured motorist claim appeal that chal- lenged the trial court’s order of remittitur, this court relied on its supervisory authority to announce a pro- spective rule requiring insurers to ‘‘raise issues of policy limitation, even when undisputed, by special defense.’’ Id., 806 . 2015The opinion offered no justification whatsoever for the reliance on the authority, merely stating vaguely that it exercised its authority ‘‘[i]n view of the issues raised by this appeal . . . .’’ Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O'Neill
green
1 sentence2001In Mayer v. Biafore, Florek O'Neill , supra, 245 Conn. 88 , the attorney allegedly failed to meet the statute of limitations for filing an uninsured motorist claim. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.
green
1 sentence2000The defendant Jemmott claims that an uninsured motorist claim is an action based upon contract and is not a negligence action, citing Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company , 242 Conn. 375 , 384 (1997). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital
green
1 sentence1999In support of this position plaintiff cites two superior court cases as persuasive authority. 4 The defendant Sardinas' position is that although an uninsured motorist claim is in the nature of a contract action, it should not be treated as a collateral source and thus CT Page 3888 exempt from the application of the apportionment statute citing in support of this position Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 (1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
green
1 sentence1997Co. v. Coleman, 222 Conn. 269 , which had determined that General Statute § 31-284 was a bar to the uninsured motorist claim. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moreland
green
1 sentence1996For instance, in Alfa Mutual Insurance Co v. Moreland, 589 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1991), the plaintiff brought an uninsured motorist claim against his insurer. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Caulfield v. Amica Mutual Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1995Co., 31 Conn. App. 781 , 627 A.2d 466 (1993), should be disregarded, asserting that an underinsured motorist claim seeking statutory multiple damages should be treated differently than an uninsured motorist claim. 1995Co., 31 Conn. App. 781 , 627 A.2d 466 (1993), should be disregarded, asserting that an underinsured motorist claim seeking statutory multiple damages should be treated differently than an uninsured motorist claim. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Security Insurance v. DeLaurentis
green
1 sentence1991Co. of Hartford v. DeLaurentis, 202 Conn. 178 , 185-186 (1987) stated in part as follows: Section 38-175c(a)(1) provides that all motor vehicle insurance policies issued on or after October 1, 1971, which include an CT Page 7994 uninsured motorist provision "which contains a provision for binding arbitration shall include a provision for final determination of insurance coverage in such arbitration proceeding." (Emphasis added.) See Wilson v. Security Ins. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Kay v. Kay
green
2 sentences1991In Kay v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d 94 , 513 P.2d 1372 (1973), the plaintiff, who was injured in a one-car accident while riding with his mother, brought suit against her and against her automobile liability insurer, seeking to recover under the policy's uninsured motorist clause. 1991In Kay v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d 94 , 513 P.2d 1372 (1973), the plaintiff, who was injured in a one-car accident while riding with his mother, brought suit against her and against her automobile liability insurer, seeking to recover under the policy's uninsured motorist clause. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Krupa v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1985The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof to vacate the arbitration award, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418, (2) in finding that the arbitration proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-576, (3) in its interpretation of General Statutes § 52-576 as to when a cause of action accrues for an uninsured motorist claim and when an action is properly brought under that section, (4) in finding that the plaintiff’s claim of estoppel was without merit, (5) in applying Krupa v. Kell 1985The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof to vacate the arbitration award, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418, (2) in finding that the arbitration proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-576, (3) in its interpretation of General Statutes § 52-576 as to when a cause of action accrues for an uninsured motorist claim and when an action is properly brought under that section, (4) in finding that the plaintiff’s claim of estoppel was without merit, (5) in applying Krupa v. Kell | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.