Dias v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. Cv98-033 35 14 S (Aug. 20, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dias v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. Cv98-033 35 14 S (Aug. 20, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11257

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 20, 2001

DocketNo. CV98-033 35 14 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11257 (Dias v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. Cv98-033 35 14 S (Aug. 20, 2001)) 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

Dias v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. Cv98-033 35 14 S (Aug. 20, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11257 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The issues raised in the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's objection are whether the defendant waived its rights to assert the one year limitation clause in the plaintiff's homeowner insurance policy and whether the defendant is estopped from asserting its rights. Estoppel and waiver raise questions of fact that must be determined by the trier of fact. Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559,569, 668 A.2d 367 (1995); Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Walsh,218 Conn. 681, 699, 590 A.2d 957 (1991); Loda v. H. K. Sargeant Associates, Inc. 188 Conn. 69, 76, 448 A.2d 812 (1982); New York AnnualConference v. Fisher, 182 Conn. 272, 300, 438 A.2d 62 (1980); Frager v.Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 161 Conn. 472, 486, 289 A.2d 896 (1971);Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 3 Conn. App. 432, 447, 489 A.2d 398 (1985), aff'd, 200 Conn. 630, 513 A.2d 52 (1986) (special defense of waiver raises issue of fact for jury). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

White, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The issues raised in the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's objection are whether the defendant waived its rights to assert the one year limitation clause in the plaintiff's homeowner insurance policy and whether the defendant is estopped from asserting its rights. Estoppel and waiver raise questions of fact that must be determined by the trier of fact. Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559,569, 668 A.2d 367 (1995); Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Walsh,218 Conn. 681, 699, 590 A.2d 957 (1991); Loda v. H. K. Sargeant Associates, Inc. 188 Conn. 69, 76, 448 A.2d 812 (1982); New York AnnualConference v. Fisher, 182 Conn. 272, 300, 438 A.2d 62 (1980); Frager v.Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 161 Conn. 472, 486, 289 A.2d 896 (1971);Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 3 Conn. App. 432, 447, 489 A.2d 398 (1985), aff'd, 200 Conn. 630, 513 A.2d 52 (1986) (special defense of waiver raises issue of fact for jury). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

White, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dias-v-prudential-ins-co-of-america-no-cv98-033-35-14-s-aug-20-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack