Lash v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

652 A.2d 526, 36 Conn. App. 623, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 22
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJanuary 17, 1995
Docket12975
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 652 A.2d 526 (Lash v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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
Lash v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 652 A.2d 526, 36 Conn. App. 623, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 22 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the defendant insurers on the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist claim. The trial court determined that the arbitrator properly found that the plaintiff was not underinsured pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 38a-336 (d).1 The plaintiff concedes that our Supreme Court’s decisions in Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30, 594 A.2d 977 (1991), and American Motorist Ins. Co. v. Gould, 213 Conn. 625, 569 A.2d 1105 (1990), dictate this result. He, nevertheless, invites this court to review his claims that (1) Coon and Gould, were wrongly decided and (2) § 38a-336 (d), as interpreted by our Supreme Court and applied to this case, violates the equal protection clauses of the United States2 and Connecticut3 constitutions.

We cannot address the plaintiffs claims that the Coon and Gould cases were wrongly decided as we are bound by Supreme Court precedent. See Somohano v. Somohano, 29 Conn. App. 392, 615 A.2d 181 (1992).

[625]*625We decline to review the plaintiff’s claim that “[§ 38a-336 (d)], as construed in Gould and Coon, is unconstitutional . . . .” Even though the equal protection claims presented here were not raised or considered in Coon and Gould, it is not our function, as an intermediate appellate court, to review whether those decisions render that statute unconstitutional. Whether to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision on grounds not raised in the argument of that case is a matter appropriately reserved for the Supreme Court. See State v. Welch, 224 Conn. 1, 5-6, 615 A.2d 505 (1992).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Hinde v. Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc.
84 A.3d 895 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2014)
State v. Hernaiz
60 A.3d 331 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission
48 A.3d 694 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2012)
Stuart v. Stuart
996 A.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2010)
Murphy v. Hillside Village Condo. Assn, No. Cv96-0254486-S (Jul. 23, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 7521 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Conway v. Town of Wilton
664 A.2d 327 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995)
Lash v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
659 A.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
652 A.2d 526, 36 Conn. App. 623, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lash-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-connappct-1995.