Covenant Insurance Co. v. Motor Appliance, No. 35 58 13 (Sep. 27, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

Covenant Insurance Co. v. Motor Appliance, No. 35 58 13 (Sep. 27, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1875

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 27, 1990

DocketNo. 35 58 13

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1875 (Covenant Insurance Co. v. Motor Appliance, No. 35 58 13 (Sep. 27, 1990)) 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

Covenant Insurance Co. v. Motor Appliance, No. 35 58 13 (Sep. 27, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1875 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff insurance company is suing defendant Met Pro Corp. manufacturer of industrial products as subrogee after payment of a fire claim to its insured. On March 9, 1987, Met Pro's liability carrier which afforded insurance to cover such liability of Met Pro, was adjudged insolvent. Def. Ex. B. Met Pro now moves for Summary Judgment based upon the provisions of Chapter 687 C.G.S. which provides, inter alia, that any claimant's rights against a policy holder whose carrier has become insolvent, shall be asserted only against the Conn. Ins. Guaranty Association and not against the insured (see 38-275 (6)(c) C.G.S.).

Plaintiff suggests that the defendant may have umbrella coverage for losses which might possibly provide a fund to cover CT Page 1876 plaintiff's claim and accordingly a question is presented as to this issue which would preclude granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

As the plaintiff/claimant in this matter is a domestic insurance carrier it not only has the benefit of this chapter to protect against losses brought about by insolvent carriers it is also subject to the limitations imposed by the Act. It is the court's conclusion that the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment should be granted since whether excess or other insurance may be available the plaintiff's loss is within the primary policy limits of the insolvent insurer and subject to the bar imposed for the benefit of the insured under 38-275(6)(c) C.G.S. See Cordani v. Rawlis, 395 So.2d 1276.

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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff insurance company is suing defendant Met Pro Corp. manufacturer of industrial products as subrogee after payment of a fire claim to its insured. On March 9, 1987, Met Pro's liability carrier which afforded insurance to cover such liability of Met Pro, was adjudged insolvent. Def. Ex. B. Met Pro now moves for Summary Judgment based upon the provisions of Chapter 687 C.G.S. which provides, inter alia, that any claimant's rights against a policy holder whose carrier has become insolvent, shall be asserted only against the Conn. Ins. Guaranty Association and not against the insured (see 38-275 (6)(c) C.G.S.).

Plaintiff suggests that the defendant may have umbrella coverage for losses which might possibly provide a fund to cover CT Page 1876 plaintiff's claim and accordingly a question is presented as to this issue which would preclude granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

As the plaintiff/claimant in this matter is a domestic insurance carrier it not only has the benefit of this chapter to protect against losses brought about by insolvent carriers it is also subject to the limitations imposed by the Act. It is the court's conclusion that the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment should be granted since whether excess or other insurance may be available the plaintiff's loss is within the primary policy limits of the insolvent insurer and subject to the bar imposed for the benefit of the insured under 38-275(6)(c) C.G.S. See Cordani v. Rawlis, 395 So.2d 1276.

George W. Ripley, Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covenant-insurance-co-v-motor-appliance-no-35-58-13-sep-27-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack