5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Martin
green
2 sentences2022Co. v. Martin, 442 Pa. Super. 442, 445 , 660 A.2d 66 (1995) (‘‘a person should not be indemnified by insurance against the conse- quences of his [wilful], criminal assault’’ (internal quota- tion marks omitted)), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 676 , 678 A.2d 366 (1996). 2022Co. v. Martin, 442 Pa. Super. 442, 445 , 660 A.2d 66 (1995) (‘‘a person should not be indemnified by insurance against the conse- quences of his [wilful], criminal assault’’ (internal quota- tion marks omitted)), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 676 , 678 A.2d 366 (1996). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Litrenta v. Republic Insurance
green
1 sentence2022Minnesota courts have repeatedly declined to find liabil- ity coverage for unlawful conduct and serious criminal acts.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.)); Litrenta v. Republic Ins., 245 App. Div. 2d 344, 345, 665 N.Y.S.2d 679 (1997) (‘‘it is contrary to public policy to insure against liability arising directly against an insured from his violation of a criminal statute’’); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Taxter v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences1997Co. of America, 44 Wash. App. 121, 126-27 , 721 P.2d 972 (1986), the Washington Court of Appeals upheld an automatic termination clause against a claim by an insured that the clause violated a statute requiring an insurer to provide twenty days written notice before canceling an insurance policy. 8 The court reasoned that “[t]he term ‘cancellation’ refers to a unilateral act of the insurer terminating coverage during the policy term. . . . 1997Co. of America, 44 Wash. App. 121, 126-27 , 721 P.2d 972 (1986), the Washington Court of Appeals upheld an automatic termination clause against a claim by an insured that the clause violated a statute requiring an insurer to provide twenty days written notice before canceling an insurance policy. 8 The court reasoned that “[t]he term ‘cancellation’ refers to a unilateral act of the insurer terminating coverage during the policy term. . . . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Arton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence1994O'Leary v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. , 178 Conn. 32 , 38 ; Arton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. , 163 Conn. 127 , 135 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
O'LEARY v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1994O'Leary v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. , 178 Conn. 32 , 38 ; Arton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. , 163 Conn. 127 , 135 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Connecticut Savings Bank v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1983Ibid. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Jenkins v. GEN. ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSU. CORP., LTD.
green
2 sentences1968Nor can the parties prevent prosecution of the cause by agreeing that the Corporation cannot be impleaded.” Jenkins v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 349 Mass. 699 , 701, 212 N.E.2d 464 . 1968Nor can the parties prevent prosecution of the cause by agreeing that the Corporation cannot be impleaded.” Jenkins v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 349 Mass. 699 , 701, 212 N.E.2d 464 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.