Dibella v. Nationwide Mutual Ins., No. Cv-02-0812670-S (Mar. 6, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dibella v. Nationwide Mutual Ins., No. Cv-02-0812670-S (Mar. 6, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2643, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 509

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

DocketNo. CV-02-0812670-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2643 (Dibella v. Nationwide Mutual Ins., No. Cv-02-0812670-S (Mar. 6, 2002)) 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

Dibella v. Nationwide Mutual Ins., No. Cv-02-0812670-S (Mar. 6, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2643, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 509 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING 1. As to stay of proceedings (#107; #104):

It is clear that a UM action may be instituted prior to payment or exhaustion by the alleged tortfeasor. Serrano v. Allstate Ins. Co., 223 Conn. 437, 455 (1995), and cases cited therein. It is also clear, however, that the UM action does not accrue until exhaustion of the tortfeasor's policy and that exhaustion is a necessary precondition to the recovery of underinsured motorist benefits. Serrano, supra, 452; Coelho v. ITT Hartford, 251 Conn. 106, 112 (1999). In reconciling the principles, it has been stated that insurers may be committed to defend against claims which have not yet accrued; Coelho, supra 114; but a UM case may not go to judgment prior to exhaustion. Section 38a-336 (2)(b) of the General Statutes, see Continental Ins. Co. v. Cebe-Hebersley, 214 Conn. 209 (1990).

In recognition of the statement in Coelho that an insurer may be required to defend against a claim which has not yet accrued, and to promote efficiency, the motion to stay is denied at this time, without prejudice to the ability of the defendant to request a stay or severance as trial approaches.

Beach, J. CT Page 2644

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING 1. As to stay of proceedings (#107; #104):

It is clear that a UM action may be instituted prior to payment or exhaustion by the alleged tortfeasor. Serrano v. Allstate Ins. Co., 223 Conn. 437, 455 (1995), and cases cited therein. It is also clear, however, that the UM action does not accrue until exhaustion of the tortfeasor's policy and that exhaustion is a necessary precondition to the recovery of underinsured motorist benefits. Serrano, supra, 452; Coelho v. ITT Hartford, 251 Conn. 106, 112 (1999). In reconciling the principles, it has been stated that insurers may be committed to defend against claims which have not yet accrued; Coelho, supra 114; but a UM case may not go to judgment prior to exhaustion. Section 38a-336 (2)(b) of the General Statutes, see Continental Ins. Co. v. Cebe-Hebersley, 214 Conn. 209 (1990).

In recognition of the statement in Coelho that an insurer may be required to defend against a claim which has not yet accrued, and to promote efficiency, the motion to stay is denied at this time, without prejudice to the ability of the defendant to request a stay or severance as trial approaches.

Beach, J. CT Page 2644

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2643, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibella-v-nationwide-mutual-ins-no-cv-02-0812670-s-mar-6-2002-connsuperct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack