Rego v. Connecticut Insurance Placement Facility
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether an insurer who pleads concealment or misrepresentation as a special defense in an action to recover on a fire insurance policy is required to prove that defense by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate burden of proof.
The plaintiff, Zelia S. Rego, was the owner of two adjacent multi-family houses in Waterbury that were insured against fire loss under policies issued by the defendant, the Connecticut Insurance Placement Facility. After both…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Kilduff v. Adams, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Insurance Companies v. WeidesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Doublewal Corp. v. ToffolonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Verrastro v. Middlesex InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Miller v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Lees v. Middlesex InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Weisman v. KasparSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- River Dock & Pile, Inc. v. O & G Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.