Legal Opinion
Glens Falls Insurance v. Sybalsky
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 19, 1997No. AC 16479PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVERY, J.
The plaintiffs in the second case, Maria Mason Sybalsky and Julia Sybalsky,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their application to correct an arbitration award and granting the defendant’s application to correct the award. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly incorporated Connecticut’s minimum underinsured motorist coverage requirements, as determined by New York law, into the plaintiffs’ insurance policy, which was issued by the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
*315The following facts and procedural history are…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kelly v. FigueiredoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Roy v. Centennial InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. PasionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Kent v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Country-Wide Insurance v. RodriguezNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dobuzinsky v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Glens Falls Insurance v. SybalskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Noble v. ClawsonVermont Superior Court · 2011