Legal Opinion

Carameta v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. Cv00 06 99 43 (Jan. 8, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided January 8, 2001No. CV00 06 99 43Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE #115

Because counts one through six all arise out of the same subject of action, they are properly joined in the same complaint pursuant to Practice Book §§ 10-21(7) and 10-22. Further, because Connecticut practice allows parties to assert claims that are contingent upon the favorable disposition of another claim, a determination by the court as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage is not a prerequisite to maintaining causes of action that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  2. DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Parsons v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  4. Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Pamela B. v. MentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998

5 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