Courchaine v. Shelby Mutual Insurance

Connecticut Appellate Court

Courchaine v. Shelby Mutual Insurance

479 A.2d 1218, 2 Conn. App. 438, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 686

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedAugust 21, 1984

Docket2460

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 479 A.2d 1218 (Courchaine v. Shelby Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courchaine v. Shelby Mutual Insurance, 479 A.2d 1218, 2 Conn. App. 438, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 686 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal¹ by the defendant from a judgment vacating an arbitration award of uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court permitted the plaintiff to call the arbitrator as a witness and to elicit from him how he arrived at his award of damages. The court vacated the award on the ground that the arbitrator had misapplied the law.

Both parties agree that the submission to arbitration was unrestricted. Where the submission is unrestricted, the award is final and binding and cannot be reviewed for errors of law or fact. Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 23, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983); Milford Employees Assn. v. Milford, 179 Conn. 678, 683, 427 A.2d 859 (1980); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Brookman, 1 Conn. App. 219, 223, 470 A.2d 253 (1984). Because the award conforms to the submission and because the actions of the arbitrator are not sub[439]*439ject to review under the circumstances in this case, we need not consider the other issues raised by the defendant.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment denying the plaintiffs application to vacate the award of the arbitrator.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal¹ by the defendant from a judgment vacating an arbitration award of uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court permitted the plaintiff to call the arbitrator as a witness and to elicit from him how he arrived at his award of damages. The court vacated the award on the ground that the arbitrator had misapplied the law.

Both parties agree that the submission to arbitration was unrestricted. Where the submission is unrestricted, the award is final and binding and cannot be reviewed for errors of law or fact. Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 23, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983); Milford Employees Assn. v. Milford, 179 Conn. 678, 683, 427 A.2d 859 (1980); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Brookman, 1 Conn. App. 219, 223, 470 A.2d 253 (1984). Because the award conforms to the submission and because the actions of the arbitrator are not sub[439]*439ject to review under the circumstances in this case, we need not consider the other issues raised by the defendant.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment denying the plaintiffs application to vacate the award of the arbitrator.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 A.2d 1218, 2 Conn. App. 438, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courchaine-v-shelby-mutual-insurance-connappct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack