Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
This consolidated appeal involves the doctrine of accord and satisfaction 1 of a negotiated instrument, as codified in article three of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and adopted by Connecticut in General Statutes § 42a-3-311. 2 The plaintiffs, Auto Glass Express, Inc. (Auto Glass), and Ed Steben Glass Company, Inc. (Ed Steben), appeal from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, the Hanover Insurance Company, on its special defense of accord and satisfaction. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly applied the doctrine of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jones v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- Hoerstman General Contracting, Inc v. HahnMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Herbert S. Newman & Partners, P.C. v. CFC Construction Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Celentano v. Oaks Condominium Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- O'Connor v. LarocqueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Sullivan v. DelisaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Parker's Classic Auto Works, Ltd. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 2019
- Northeast Builders Supply & Home Centers, LLC v. RMM Consulting, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.