Buddha v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv 89 0356282 S (Oct. 2, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Buddha v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv 89 0356282 S (Oct. 2, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9168

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 2, 1991

DocketNo. CV 89 0356282 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9168 (Buddha v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv 89 0356282 S (Oct. 2, 1991)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buddha v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv 89 0356282 S (Oct. 2, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9168 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Because Sec. 38-185x C.G.S. setting forth the requirements for cancellation of commercial risk insurance policies does not proscribe the method of giving the required notice. The parties to the contract are free to contract between themselves as to the means by which the contract may be cancelled. Westmoreland v. General Accident F. and L. Assurance Corp. 144 Conn. 265, 270.

In this case the policy, as amended, regarding the cancellation provision, requires giving written notice to the named insured but does not specify the manner in which such "written notice" shall be effected, whether by mail, personal delivery or in some other manner.

Accordingly questions are presented as to how the CT Page 9169 trier of fact would characterize the facts that have been presented by way of the affidavits on file and what inferences and conclusions it would draw from them. See United Oil Co. v. Urban Development Comm. 158 Conn. 364, 379.

Both plaintiffs and defendants Motions for Summary Judgment are denied.

George W. Ripley, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Because Sec. 38-185x C.G.S. setting forth the requirements for cancellation of commercial risk insurance policies does not proscribe the method of giving the required notice. The parties to the contract are free to contract between themselves as to the means by which the contract may be cancelled. Westmoreland v. General Accident F. and L. Assurance Corp. 144 Conn. 265, 270.

In this case the policy, as amended, regarding the cancellation provision, requires giving written notice to the named insured but does not specify the manner in which such "written notice" shall be effected, whether by mail, personal delivery or in some other manner.

Accordingly questions are presented as to how the CT Page 9169 trier of fact would characterize the facts that have been presented by way of the affidavits on file and what inferences and conclusions it would draw from them. See United Oil Co. v. Urban Development Comm. 158 Conn. 364, 379.

Both plaintiffs and defendants Motions for Summary Judgment are denied.

George W. Ripley, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 9168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buddha-v-liberty-mutual-ins-co-no-cv-89-0356282-s-oct-2-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack