Legal Opinion
Keystone Insurance v. Raffile
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 30, 1993No. 14479PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether an individual claiming to be injured in a one car, force and rim accident1 must provide independent corroborative evidence of the accident in order to recover uninsured motorist benefits from his insurance carrier. The plaintiff, Keystone Insurance Company, moved in the trial court to vacate an arbitration award made to the defendant, Dean Raffile, because the defendant had not proved his claim of a force and run accident by corroborative evidence. The trial court vacated the arbitration award, concluding that our decision in Streitweiser v.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Alaimo v. RoyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. CarothersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Brown v. Progressive Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1971
- Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Carrano v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Polizos v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Slack v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.