(a) Any person in whose name more than twenty-five motor vehicles are registered may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance issued by the commissioner as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The commissioner may, in his discretion, upon the application of such person, issue a certificate of self-insurance when he is satisfied that such person is possessed and will continue to be possessed of ability to pay judgments obtained against such person.
(c) Upon not less than five days' notice and a hearing pursuant to such notice, the commissioner may, upon reasonable grounds, cancel a certificate of self-insurance. Failure to pay any judgment within thirty days after such judgment has become final shall constitute a reasonable ground for the cancellation of a certificate of self-insurance.
(1951, S. 1367d.)
Cited. 143 C. 202; 169 C. 267. Self-insurance provision discussed. 248 C. 195. Self-insurers not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage. 254 C. 404.
City's notification to Insurance Commissioner that does not contain a specific amount of its exposure as a self-insurer does not deem city to have agreed to unlimited liability coverage; section does not and cannot define amount of coverage that a city agreed to provide when it became a self-insurer. 63 CA 815. Self-insured municipal employer was not required to create a writing to give notice of its intention to reduce amount of its uninsured motorist coverage by amount of workers' compensation benefits paid to plaintiff employee because the self-insured municipality functions as both insurer and insured. 82 CA 752; judgment reversed, see 273 C. 519.
Notes of Decisions
Willoughby v. City of New Haven, 757 A.2d 1083 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 28× “The dispositive issue in this appeal, on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, is whether a municipality that is a self-insurer pursuant to General Statutes §§ 14-129 1 and 38a-371 (c) 2 is required to provide uninsured *406 and…”
Boynton v. City of New Haven, 779 A.2d 186 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 10× “General Statutes § 14-129. Because the city’s notification to the insurance commissioner did not specify the amount of the city’s exposure as self-insurer, he maintains that the city must be deemed to have agreed to assume unlimited liability coverage.”
Orkney v. Hanover Ins., 727 A.2d 700 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 14-129 provides in relevant part that “[ajny person in whose name more than twenty-five motor vehicles are registered may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance issued by the commissioner .”
McDonald v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 831 A.2d 310 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 4× “, essentially became a self-insurer without complying with the provisions of General Statutes § 14-129 4 and because a deductible on an uninsured motorists policy is illegal.”
Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. v. Hertz Corp., 923 A.2d 673 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 14-129, outlining the self-insurance requirements under the state’s motor vehicle laws, provides in relevant part: “(a) Any person in whose name more than twenty-five motor vehicles are registered may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of…”
Serra v. City of West Haven, 822 A.2d 1018 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 3× “We explained that self-insurers are treated no *273 differently than commercial insurers, and General Statutes §§ 14-129 and 38a-371 (c) “do not impose greater liability on a self-insurer than they impose on a commercial insurer.”
Piersa v. Phoenix Ins., 848 A.2d 485 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 8× “5 The plaintiff claims that the defendant is in breach of its statutory duty, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 14-129, 6 38a-371 7 and 38a- *758 336, 8 to provide uninsured motorist benefits because it may not reduce uninsured motorist coverage by the amount of benefits paid…”
Giglio v. Am. Econ. Ins., 900 A.2d 27 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “, General Statutes §§ 14-129 13 and 38a-371 (c); 14 *810 see also Boynton v.”
Piersa v. Phoenix Ins., 871 A.2d 992 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “With respect to the first argument, the court concluded that the principle of parity did not require the city to provide unlimited underinsured motorist coverage because, in the court’s view, that proposition was based on (1) General Statutes § 14-129, a linkage that this court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.