Legal Opinion
Costantino v. Skolnick
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 16, 2010No. SC 18327PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
The named plaintiff, Richard Costantino,1 appeals from the trial court’s decision2 denying his request for a declaratory judgment that the defendant Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company doing business as ProMutual and ProSelect Insurance Company (ProMutual), the medical malpractice insurer for the named defendant, Stanley Skolnick, is required to pay the plaintiff offer of judgment interest that exceeds the limits of liability in Skolnick’s policy. The plaintiff sought the declaration after the parties had entered into a settlement agreement (agreement) that required…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Gazo v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Burnham v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hasychak v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLPSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Prime Locations of CT, LLC v. Rocky Hill Development, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
- State Marshal Assn. of Connecticut, Inc. v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- McGrath v. GallantConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.