Legal Opinion · Dissent

Capozzi v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 3, 1993No. 11477Published

1DissentSchaller, J.

I respectfully disagree with the result reached in part II of the majority opinion. There, the majority concludes that “the arbitrators reasonably concluded that it was not the plaintiffs intent to replace the Honda with the Suzuki motorcycle.” On that basis, the majority affirms the decision of the trial court which, itself, confirmed the decision of the two majority arbitrators on the ground that there was substantial evidence to support their finding concerning the plaintiff’s intent.

I agree with the majority that the issue in this case is whether the trial court properly concluded that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  2. Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Kelly v. FigueiredoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. S & S Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  5. Adams v. Covenant Security Insurance CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1971

3 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