Mendes v. Automobile Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The primary issue on these appeals is whether an automobile insurance policy provision that *653permits either party to the contract to demand a trial de novo when an uninsured or underinsured motorist arbitration award exceeds $20,000 is void as against public policy. We agree with the trial court’s ruling that such a provision contravenes the public policy of this state and is therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, we find no error.
The procedural and factual history of these appeals is not in dispute. On July 24,1986, the defendant, Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford,1 issued to Manuel…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. MarshOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Pepin v. American Universal InsuranceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1988
- Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
3Cited by28 opinions
- Schaefer v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Phoenix Insurance v. RosenIllinois Supreme Court · 2011
- Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Reed v. Farmers Insurance GroupIllinois Supreme Court · 1999
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies v. BugailiskisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.