Legal Opinion

Schratwieser v. Hartford Casualty Insurance

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 15, 1997No. 15887PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoti, J.

The plaintiffs appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. They claim that the trial court improperly determined that (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact relating to whether the plaintiff Elaine Schratwieser was an insured under her father’s policy of insurance and (2) the plaintiff Paul Schratwieser did not allege a claim on his own behalf. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are necessary for the disposition of the appeal. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover uninsured and underinsured benefits…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  2. Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  3. Batick v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  5. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Wilcox v. Webster Insurance, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  2. Norse Systems, Inc. v. Tingley Systems, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  3. Tirozzi v. Shelby InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  4. Daoust v. McWilliamsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  5. Miles v. FoleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API