equitable subrogation doctrine in Connecticut

2010Co. v. Connecticut Natural Gas Corp., 5 Conn. App. 53, 60 , 497 A.2d 54 (1985); accord 16 L.

2010Co. v. Connecticut Natural Gas Corp., 5 Conn. App. 53, 60 , 497 A.2d 54 (1985); accord 16 L.

2018DiLullo v. Joseph , supra, 259 Conn. at 853 , 792 A.2d 819 .

2018DiLullo v. Joseph , supra, 259 Conn. at 853 , 792 A.2d 819 .

2015Though [the] plaintiff indicates in [its] argument that constructive notice should be a determi- native factor, if not the primary factor, in considering the application of equitable subrogation, the trial court pointed out [that] if such prevented the application of the doctrine, it would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s language in [Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 (1966)].’’ (Emphasis in original.) We conclude that constructive notice of an interven- ing interest in the property is not a per se bar to the application of the doctrine of equitable sub

2015Though [the] plaintiff indicates in [its] argument that constructive notice should be a determi- native factor, if not the primary factor, in considering the application of equitable subrogation, the trial court pointed out [that] if such prevented the application of the doctrine, it would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s language in [Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 (1966)].’’ (Emphasis in original.) We conclude that constructive notice of an interven- ing interest in the property is not a per se bar to the application of the doctrine of equitable sub

2010The doctrine of equitable subrogation provides an exception to the first in time, first in right rule and “has been applied in certain limited circumstances to rearrange the priorities of parties in a case.” Id.

2010“The object of [equitable] subrogation is the prevention of injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rosenblit v. Williams, 57 Conn. App. 788, 793 , 750 A.2d 1131 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906 , 755 A.2d 882 (2000).

2010“The object of [equitable] subrogation is the prevention of injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rosenblit v. Williams, 57 Conn. App. 788, 793 , 750 A.2d 1131 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906 , 755 A.2d 882 (2000).

2010“The object of [equitable] subrogation is the prevention of injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rosenblit v. Williams, 57 Conn. App. 788, 793 , 750 A.2d 1131 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906 , 755 A.2d 882 (2000).

2010“The object of [equitable] subrogation is the prevention of injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rosenblit v. Williams, 57 Conn. App. 788, 793 , 750 A.2d 1131 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906 , 755 A.2d 882 (2000).

2000Continental Casualty Co. v. Pullman, Comley Bradley Reeves , 929 F.2d 103 , 106-7 (2d Cir. 1991)." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 3.) According to the plaintiff, this duty may be enforced directly or by applying the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

2000In fact, only "[a] few jurisdictions have permitted a direct action by the excess insurer against the primary carrier. . . ." Continental Casualty Co. v. Pullman, Comley, Bradley Reeves , 929 F.2d 103 , 107 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 164 Ariz. 286 , 289-91 , 792 P.2d 749 (1990) (most courts recognizing duty to excess insurer by primary insurer allow pursuit of claim for breach of duty through doctrine of equitable subrogation, whereby excess insurer steps into shoes of insured and rights are derivative of contract between insured and

1996Perez Export Co., 303 F.2d 692 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 942 , 83 S. Ct. 321 , 9 L.

1996As now applied, the doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one person, not acting as a mere volunteer or intruder, pays a debt for which another is primarily liable, and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sehremelis v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 6 Cal. App. 4th 767, 777 , 7 Cal Rptr. 2d 903 (1992); see also Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion v. A.J.

1996Perez Export Co., 303 F.2d 692 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 942 , 83 S. Ct. 321 , 9 L.

1996Perez Export Co., 303 F.2d 692 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 942 , 83 S. Ct. 321 , 9 L.

1995Partnership, 31 Conn. App. 15 , 622 A.2d 1063 (1993). 1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to find that its mortgage had priority over the mechanic’s lien filed by Fairfield Dock Company, Inc. (Fairfield), under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, and (2) upheld the validity of Fair-field’s mechanic’s lien.

1995Partnership, 31 Conn. App. 15 , 622 A.2d 1063 (1993). 1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to find that its mortgage had priority over the mechanic’s lien filed by Fairfield Dock Company, Inc. (Fairfield), under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, and (2) upheld the validity of Fair-field’s mechanic’s lien.

1992Co., 9 Conn. App. 194 , 196-97 , 517 A.2d 1053 (1986).

1992Co., 9 Conn. App. 194 , 196-97 , 517 A.2d 1053 (1986).