Rosa v. Dworkin Chevrolet, No. 0105100 (Jul. 20, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rosa v. Dworkin Chevrolet, No. 0105100 (Jul. 20, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6828

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 20, 1992

DocketNo. 0105100

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6828 (Rosa v. Dworkin Chevrolet, No. 0105100 (Jul. 20, 1992)) 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

Rosa v. Dworkin Chevrolet, No. 0105100 (Jul. 20, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6828 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The motion to strike is granted. Joint liability under General Statutes 14-60 is appropriate "only when a dealer violates the mandate of 14-60 and lends dealer plates to a purchaser who is not insured." Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc.,199 Conn. 245, 250 n. 3 (1986) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, the placement of the provision for joint liability, immediately following the requirement of only loaning to people with insurance and before the other technical requirements of 14-60, also indicates that joint liability is appropriate only when the car is loaned to one without insurance. Accordingly, because there is no allegation that the person driving the vehicle was uninsured, the motion to strike the first count is granted.

The parties agree that a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the plaintiff's claim, and that if the plaintiff's claim is barred, so is the consortium claim. Therefore, because the count against Dworkin is stricken, the third count claiming loss of consortium is stricken, but only as to Dworkin and not other defendants.

COFIELD, J. CT Page 6829

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The motion to strike is granted. Joint liability under General Statutes 14-60 is appropriate "only when a dealer violates the mandate of 14-60 and lends dealer plates to a purchaser who is not insured." Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc.,199 Conn. 245, 250 n. 3 (1986) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, the placement of the provision for joint liability, immediately following the requirement of only loaning to people with insurance and before the other technical requirements of 14-60, also indicates that joint liability is appropriate only when the car is loaned to one without insurance. Accordingly, because there is no allegation that the person driving the vehicle was uninsured, the motion to strike the first count is granted.

The parties agree that a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the plaintiff's claim, and that if the plaintiff's claim is barred, so is the consortium claim. Therefore, because the count against Dworkin is stricken, the third count claiming loss of consortium is stricken, but only as to Dworkin and not other defendants.

COFIELD, J. CT Page 6829

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-dworkin-chevrolet-no-0105100-jul-20-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack