Legal Opinion

Soltesz v. Miller

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided December 14, 1999No. AC 18755PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FOTI, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for a prejudgment remedy.1 He claims that the trial court improperly concluded that because he had uninsured-underinsured *115motorist coverage available to him in excess of the defendant’s insurance coverage, there was adequate insurance coverage under General Statutes § 52-278d. We reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Our review of the record and the briefs of the parties discloses the following.2 The plaintiff, Joseph D. Soltesz, brought an action…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bosco v. Arrowhead by Lake, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  2. Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Hotz Corp. v. CarabettaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Doe v. RapoportConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
  2. Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  3. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. CaridiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API