Gimmartino v. Nationwide Mut. F. Ins. Co., No. Cv-94-0544556-S (May 4, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Gimmartino v. Nationwide Mut. F. Ins. Co., No. Cv-94-0544556-S (May 4, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5770

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 4, 1998

DocketNo. CV-94-0544556-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5770 (Gimmartino v. Nationwide Mut. F. Ins. Co., No. Cv-94-0544556-S (May 4, 1998)) 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

Gimmartino v. Nationwide Mut. F. Ins. Co., No. Cv-94-0544556-S (May 4, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5770 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING RE: OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST TO REVISE (FILE #120) General Objection: Overruled. The court has reviewed Lazar v.Germain, 1996 Ct. Sup. 7297 (12/9/96) and the other cases cited by plaintiff. With reference to Practice Book Section 10-61, the court has also reviewed Chapman v. Norfolk Dedham Mutual FireIns. Co., 39 Conn. App. 306, 330-33 (1995); Chapman refers to a consideration of the factors set forth in Giulietti v.Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility, 205 Conn. 424, 435-37 (1987). Weighing the Chapman/Giulietti factors, and considering the evidentiary character of certain allegations contained in the CT Page 5771 amended complaint, I am unable to find prejudice to the plaintiff of the sort, or extent, discussed in the Giulietti. Objection — First Request to Revise: Overruled. Paragraph number nine of the second count of the amended complaint consists of evidentiary material unnecessary to factually allege a CUIPA and/or a CUTPA cause of action. An issue regarding the admissibility of such evidentiary material exists under: AmericanHome Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321 (3rd Cir. 1985); Galbraith v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company,464 F.2d 225 (3rd Cir. 1972); Southern New England Television Company, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company,12 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 2, 62 (8/8/94, Lavine, J.). The admissibility of non-arrest evidence should be ruled upon by the trial judge, in limine or otherwise, before it is set forth as a factual allegation, if it need be set forth at all.

Objection — Second Request to Revise: Overruled. The overruling of this objection is not intended to be, or to be construed as, any determination regarding the admissibility of arrest evidence on the CUIPA and CUTPA, which is a matter for the trial judge.

Objection — Third Request to Revise: Overruled. Plaintiff is alleging unnecessary evidentiary material. Practice Book Section 10-1. The admissibility of this evidence may be determined by the trial judge, in limine or otherwise.

Objection — Fourth Request to Revise: Overruled, to the extent that the words "all the" and the words "and without determining the result of the aforementioned criminal prosecutions of Ms. Wozniak" shall be deleted. The remainder of paragraph #21 is to remain.

Objection — Fifth Request to Revise: Sustained.

Mulcahy, J.

CT Page 5771

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 RE: OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST TO REVISE (FILE #120) General Objection: Overruled. The court has reviewed Lazar v.Germain, 1996 Ct. Sup. 7297 (12/9/96) and the other cases cited by plaintiff. With reference to Practice Book Section 10-61, the court has also reviewed Chapman v. Norfolk Dedham Mutual FireIns. Co., 39 Conn. App. 306, 330-33 (1995); Chapman refers to a consideration of the factors set forth in Giulietti v.Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility, 205 Conn. 424, 435-37 (1987). Weighing the Chapman/Giulietti factors, and considering the evidentiary character of certain allegations contained in the CT Page 5771 amended complaint, I am unable to find prejudice to the plaintiff of the sort, or extent, discussed in the Giulietti. Objection — First Request to Revise: Overruled. Paragraph number nine of the second count of the amended complaint consists of evidentiary material unnecessary to factually allege a CUIPA and/or a CUTPA cause of action. An issue regarding the admissibility of such evidentiary material exists under: AmericanHome Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321 (3rd Cir. 1985); Galbraith v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company,464 F.2d 225 (3rd Cir. 1972); Southern New England Television Company, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company,12 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 2, 62 (8/8/94, Lavine, J.). The admissibility of non-arrest evidence should be ruled upon by the trial judge, in limine or otherwise, before it is set forth as a factual allegation, if it need be set forth at all.