General Accident Insurance v. Mortara

62 A.3d 553, 141 Conn. App. 571, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 150
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMarch 26, 2013
DocketAC 34331
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.3d 553 (General Accident Insurance v. Mortara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Accident Insurance v. Mortara, 62 A.3d 553, 141 Conn. App. 571, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 150 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jason Mortara, appeals from the judgment of the trial court vacating an arbitration award rendered in his favor. The arbitration occurred as a result of an underinsured motorist claim that the defendant had asserted against the plaintiff, General Accident Insurance Company, for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place in New Jersey. In reaching its award, the majority of the divided arbitration panel determined that, pursuant to Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 641 A.2d 783 (1994), New Jersey law applied and, further, that the defendant had complied with the procedural law of that state to receive underinsured motorist benefits. The plaintiff filed an application to vacate the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).1 In rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the court concluded that Connecticut, rather than New Jersey law, applied and accordingly, granted the plaintiffs application to vacate the award and denied the defendant’s motion to confirm it. This appeal followed.

Our examination of the record and briefs in light of the applicable law along with our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment should be affirmed. On the facts of this case, the issues properly were resolved in the court’s complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See General Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara, 52 Conn. Sup. 522, 72 [573]*573A.3d 482 (2012). We therefore adopt it as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn. App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013); Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn. App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

General Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.3d 553, 141 Conn. App. 571, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-accident-insurance-v-mortara-connappct-2013.