Legal Opinion
Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 10, 1987No. 13130PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether there is latent ambiguity in the term “collapse” in a homeowner insurance policy. The plaintiffs, Carter Beach and Mary Lawton Beach, filed a complaint seeking damages from the defendant, Middle-sex Mutual Assurance Company, for an alleged “collapse” within the terms of the insurance policy issued to them by the defendant. The defendant denied that a collapse had occurred, claiming instead that the damage to the plaintiffs’ home was due solely to the “settlement of earth movements,” a type of loss excluded under the policy.
An attorney state trial…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Boehm v. KishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Government Employees Insurance v. DeJamesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
- Griswold v. Union Labor Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Healy v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Fiess v. State Farm LloydsTexas Supreme Court · 2006
- Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Magwerks Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 2005
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.