Fleet National Bank v. Aetna Insurance

715 A.2d 740, 245 Conn. 546, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 257
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 21, 1998
DocketSC 15844
StatusPublished

This text of 715 A.2d 740 (Fleet National Bank v. Aetna 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
Fleet National Bank v. Aetna Insurance, 715 A.2d 740, 245 Conn. 546, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 257 (Colo. 1998).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Fleet National Bank, the executor of the estate of the decedent, Wilhelmina Greger, appeals1 from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Aetna Insurance Company, on the plaintiffs complaint seeking underinsured motorist conversion coverage pursuant to an insurance policy issued by the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) the policy definition of an underinsured motor vehicle excluded a vehicle owned by the named insured, and that such an exclusion applied to underin-sured motorist conversion coverage made available pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-336a;2 (2) the exclusion [548]*548in General Statutes § 38a-3363 from underinsured motorist coverage of a vehicle owned by the named [549]*549insured applies to underinsured motorist conversion [550]*550coverage; (3) § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (A)4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies applies to underinsured motorist conversion coverage; and (4) the exclusion in the decedent’s policy was not deleted by a subsequent endorsement. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[551]*551The facts are not in dispute. The decedent was a passenger in an automobile owned by her and operated by her husband. She died as a result of a collision caused by her husband’s negligence. The plaintiff exhausted the liability coverage on the automobile policy provided by the defendant, and sought additional benefits pursuant to the underinsured motorist conversion coverage of the same policy. The defendant refused to pay any additional benefits.

The plaintiff brought this action for underinsured motorist conversion benefits. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion and granted the defendant’s motion. This appeal followed.

Our examination of the record and briefs, and the arguments of the parties on appeal, persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated and on the basis of the authorities cited in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. See Fleet National Bank v. Aetna Ins. Co., 45 Conn. Sup. 355, 717 A.2d 861 (1997). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Fleet National Bank v. Aetna Ins. Co.
717 A.2d 861 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance v. Wysocki
702 A.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
715 A.2d 740, 245 Conn. 546, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleet-national-bank-v-aetna-insurance-conn-1998.