Legal Opinion
Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 1, 1990No. 13856PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether Celestine Smith is a covered person under the terms of an insurance policy issued by Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford Casualty) to Robert Harrington.1 On the basis of stipulated facts, an arbitration panel concluded that Smith was not entitled to recover under the policy. Subsequently, Smith, the plaintiff in the first case, applied to the Superior Court to vacate, modify or correct the award. See General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). Hartford Casualty, the plaintiff in the second case, applied to the Superior Court to confirm the award. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- American Motorists Insurance v. GouldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. Hawkeye-Security InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1976
- Security Insurance v. DeLaurentisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. KullaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Middlesex Insurance v. QuinnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Rosenfield v. CymbalaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Middlesex Insurance v. QuinnConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Loika v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.