Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 23, 1999No. SC 15939Published

1Dissent

PALMER, J.,

with whom BERDON and MCDONALD, Js., join, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the tortfeasor’s vehicle in this case was not underinsured within the meaning of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 38a-336, as amended by Public Acts 1993, No. 93-77, § 2, Public Acts 1993, No. 93-297, § 1, and Public Acts, Spec. Sess., May 25, 1994, No. 94-1, §§ 35 and 36.

As the majority acknowledges, this court never has resolved the question of whether a tortfeasor’s vehicle is underinsured for purposes of § 38a-336 when “the tortfeasor’s single limit liability coverage is less…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Covenant Insurance v. CoonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  2. Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  3. Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  4. American Motorists Insurance v. GouldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Prudential Property & Casualty Co. v. SzeliNew York Court of Appeals · 1994

7 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