Stiles v. Hartford Casualty Insurance
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchaller, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s motion to reargue its original motion for summary judgment and (2) determined that § 1 (f) of Public Acts 1993, No. 93-297 (P.A. 93-297), codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 38a-336 (f), did not permit her to claim underinsured motorist benefits under her employer’s insurance policy with the defendant. The second issue, which is dispositive, was decided by our Supreme Court in Reliance Ins.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Connell v. ColwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Bouley v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Burton v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Reliance Insurance v. American Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stiles v. Hartford Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997