Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

719 A.2d 1163, 245 Conn. 903, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 207

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 15, 1998

DocketSC 15939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 719 A.2d 1163 (Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance, 719 A.2d 1163, 245 Conn. 903, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 207 (Colo. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 902 (AC 17006), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the tortfeasor’s vehicle is not underinsured when the tort-feasor has a $100,000 liability policy and the plaintiff has a $100,000/$300,000 split limit uninsured motorist policy in circumstances where, due to the existence of multiple claimants, the plaintiffs recovery under the tortfeasor’s policy is less than $100,000?”

[904]*904The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15939. Bernard, Pellegrino, in support of the petition. Karen T. Gerber, in opposition. Decided May 15, 1998

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

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 902 (AC 17006), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the tortfeasor’s vehicle is not underinsured when the tort-feasor has a $100,000 liability policy and the plaintiff has a $100,000/$300,000 split limit uninsured motorist policy in circumstances where, due to the existence of multiple claimants, the plaintiffs recovery under the tortfeasor’s policy is less than $100,000?”

[904]*904The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15939. Bernard, Pellegrino, in support of the petition. Karen T. Gerber, in opposition. Decided May 15, 1998

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 A.2d 1163, 245 Conn. 903, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-metropolitan-property-casualty-insurance-conn-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack