Legal Opinion
Caulfield v. Amica Mutual Insurance
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 6, 1993No. 11545PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFreedman, J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether statutory multiple damages pursuant to General Statutes § 14-2951 are recoverable under the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile insurance policy. We conclude that such damages are not recoverable under the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile policy.
The facts are not in dispute. On March 5, 1989, the plaintiffs, Robert F. Caulfield and Carolyn L. Caulfield, were backseat passengers in an automobile being driven by Judson Rigney, when the vehicle was struck head-on, in its own lane of traffic, by another vehicle *783operated by an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Alaimo v. RoyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Bodner v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Bishop v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald and Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Koennicke v. MaioranoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. PasiakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
- State v. ReisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.