Legal Opinion
Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 23, 1999No. SC 15939PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BORDEN, J.
The sole question raised by this certified appeal is whether a tortfeasor’s vehicle is underinsured *81within the meaning of General Statutes § 38a-3362 if the tortfeasor has a $100,000 single limit liability policy and the plaintiff has a $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident split limit uninsured motorist policy. The trial court concluded that, in such circumstances, the tort-feasor is not underinsured and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. The plaintiff, Sean Doyle,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- American Universal Insurance v. DelGrecoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Covenant Insurance v. CoonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Perodeau v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. GibbsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Hammond v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. AlbertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.