Legal Opinion
Gohel v. Allstate Insurance
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 20, 2001No. AC 19337PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVERY, C. J.
The plaintiffs, Harshad Gohel, Anil Gohel and Ketan Patel, appeal from the trial court’s granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by *808the defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate).1 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that their claims were barred by the operation of Public Acts 1993, No. 93-77, § 2 (e) (P.A. 93-77), codified as General Statutes § 38a-336 (g) (l).2 We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On August 1, 1993, the plaintiffs were involved in an…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Connell v. ColwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- American Universal Insurance v. DelGrecoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Rockwell v. QuintnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Jaser v. FischerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Gomes v. Massachusetts Bay InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Tracy v. Allstate InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.