Delaney v. Safeco Insurance, No. Cv93 0132855 S (Nov. 23, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Delaney v. Safeco Insurance, No. Cv93 0132855 S (Nov. 23, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9434

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

DocketNo. CV93 0132855 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9434 (Delaney v. Safeco Insurance, No. Cv93 0132855 S (Nov. 23, 1993)) 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

Delaney v. Safeco Insurance, No. Cv93 0132855 S (Nov. 23, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9434 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I. The Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Special Defenses are hereby stricken because they allege the defendant's claimed entitlement to collateral source reductions which may not be pleaded as special defenses. Bongiovani v. Board of Education, attached.

II. The Sixth Special Defense is stricken because it pleads no CT Page 9435 facts that demonstrate that the plaintiff has no cause of action. P.B. 164.

III. While a contractual limit of liability is a proper subject for a special defense, Bennett v. Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, 32 Conn. App. 617 (1993), adjustment of those limits by collateral source reductions is not. For this reason the seventh special defense is stricken.

MOTTOLESE, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 I. The Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Special Defenses are hereby stricken because they allege the defendant's claimed entitlement to collateral source reductions which may not be pleaded as special defenses. Bongiovani v. Board of Education, attached.

II. The Sixth Special Defense is stricken because it pleads no CT Page 9435 facts that demonstrate that the plaintiff has no cause of action. P.B. 164.

III. While a contractual limit of liability is a proper subject for a special defense, Bennett v. Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, 32 Conn. App. 617 (1993), adjustment of those limits by collateral source reductions is not. For this reason the seventh special defense is stricken.

MOTTOLESE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaney-v-safeco-insurance-no-cv93-0132855-s-nov-23-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack