Legal Opinion

Brunetto v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 1, 1940PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, C. J.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant company to recover upon an insurance policy for damage by fire to a house owned by her, alleging, in addition to facts relevant to a recovery of damages, that by fraud or mistake the policy had named both herself and her husband, Joseph Brunetto, as the insured; and she sought “by way of equitable relief” a reformation of the policy and damages. Upon motion the husband was made a party defendant, but judgment by default was rendered against him. The case was tried to the jury and they returned a verdict for damages against the husband as…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Doyle v. DixonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  3. Berry v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  4. Doroszka v. LavineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  5. Noxon v. RemingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Prosser v. RichmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  2. Salaman v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Sciola v. ShernowConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  4. Gaul v. NoivaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. Barber v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API