Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Luna

Connecticut Superior Court

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Luna

481 A.2d 427, 40 Conn. Super. Ct. 89, 40 Conn. Supp. 89, 1984 Conn. Super. LEXIS 165

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 21, 1984

DocketFile 64575

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 481 A.2d 427 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Luna) 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

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Luna, 481 A.2d 427, 40 Conn. Super. Ct. 89, 40 Conn. Supp. 89, 1984 Conn. Super. LEXIS 165 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Stoughton, J.

The plaintiff alleges that on November 22, 1981, the defendant Rosalina Luna was operating a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Agency *90 Rent-A-Car and collided with a motor vehicle owned and operated by Lyle J. Smith. The plaintiff alleged that the Smith vehicle was damaged because of the negligence of the defendant Luna, that it insured the Smith vehicle, and that it has paid its insured and is subrogated to his rights.

The defendant Agency Rent-A-Car has counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damage caused to its vehicle in the collision. The plaintiff has moved to strike the counterclaim upon the ground that it fails to allege a recognizable cause of action against the plaintiff.

The counterclaim alleges that the negligence of the plaintiffs insured was the proximate cause of the collision. There is no allegation that the operator of the vehicle insured by the plaintiff was the agent of the plaintiff at the time of the collision. There is no allegation that the plaintiff had anything whatsoever to do with the operation of its insured’s vehicle or with the collision. While the negligence of Smith may constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s action, that is not to say that it provides the basis for an action against the plaintiff.

The motion to strike is granted.

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

Stoughton, J.

The plaintiff alleges that on November 22, 1981, the defendant Rosalina Luna was operating a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Agency *90 Rent-A-Car and collided with a motor vehicle owned and operated by Lyle J. Smith. The plaintiff alleged that the Smith vehicle was damaged because of the negligence of the defendant Luna, that it insured the Smith vehicle, and that it has paid its insured and is subrogated to his rights.

The defendant Agency Rent-A-Car has counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damage caused to its vehicle in the collision. The plaintiff has moved to strike the counterclaim upon the ground that it fails to allege a recognizable cause of action against the plaintiff.

The counterclaim alleges that the negligence of the plaintiffs insured was the proximate cause of the collision. There is no allegation that the operator of the vehicle insured by the plaintiff was the agent of the plaintiff at the time of the collision. There is no allegation that the plaintiff had anything whatsoever to do with the operation of its insured’s vehicle or with the collision. While the negligence of Smith may constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s action, that is not to say that it provides the basis for an action against the plaintiff.

The motion to strike is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 A.2d 427, 40 Conn. Super. Ct. 89, 40 Conn. Supp. 89, 1984 Conn. Super. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-luna-connsuperct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack