Legal Opinion

Majernicek v. Hartford Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 25, 1997No. 15461PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 38a-343 (a) requires an insurer to provide written notice of cancellation of an automobile insurance policy when an insured triggers *88the policy’s automatic termination clause by procuring other similar insurance. The plaintiffs, Georgetta Majer-nicek, John Majernicek, Sr., and John Majernicek, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which determined that the automobile insurance policy (policy) issued by the defendant, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, was not in effect at the time that John…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  3. Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  5. Brauer v. FrecciaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Gagne v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  2. New Milford Savings Bank v. JajerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Town of Ridgefield v. Eppoliti Realty Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  4. Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Cowles v. CowlesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API