Legal Opinion
Doucette v. Pomes
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 26, 1999No. SC 15849PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the intervening plaintiff, Metropolitan District Commission (Metropolitan), as a self-insurer under the Workers’ Compensation Act; General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.; is an “insurer” under General Statutes § 38a-838 (6),1 *445thereby precluding it from recovering from the defendant Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (association)2 2 pursuant to the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act (guaranty act).3 We conclude that Metropolitan is not an insurer and therefore that it may assert a valid claim under the guaranty act.
The…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Mead v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Conway v. Town of WiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- State v. KishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Wasko v. ManellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- King v. SultarSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- State v. VickersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- MGM Mirage v. Nevada Insurance Guaranty Ass'nNevada Supreme Court · 2009
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.