Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Santagata

Connecticut Superior Court

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Santagata

284 A.2d 132, 29 Conn. Super. Ct. 300, 29 Conn. Supp. 300, 1971 Conn. Super. LEXIS 133

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1971

DocketFile 128504

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.2d 132 (Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Santagata) 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

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Santagata, 284 A.2d 132, 29 Conn. Super. Ct. 300, 29 Conn. Supp. 300, 1971 Conn. Super. LEXIS 133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Wall, J.

The plaintiff is requesting a stay of arbitration proceedings under an uninsured motorist provision in an insurance poliey, since the defendants Santagata have failed to comply with a request for a physical examination. The policy provides : “The injured person shall submit to physical examination by physicians selected by Safeeo when and as often as Safeco may reasonably require.” This is one of the conditions precedent to arbitration. Frager v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 155 Conn. 270, 277. The exhibits fail to disclose any waiver of the condition on the part of the plaintiff. The most that can be said for the defendants Santagata is that there was a misunderstanding concerning the effect of a termination of medical treatment. Compensation for pain and suffering can be recovered for a reasonable time in the future even though no permanency is claimed. Schultz v. Pivar, 370 Pa. 271, 279. The plaintiff is making a reasonable request, especially when the defendants Santagata do not intend to terminate their claim for pain and suffering contemporaneously with medical treatment. The stay is granted, subject, however, to restoration on compliance.

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

Wall, J.

The plaintiff is requesting a stay of arbitration proceedings under an uninsured motorist provision in an insurance poliey, since the defendants Santagata have failed to comply with a request for a physical examination. The policy provides : “The injured person shall submit to physical examination by physicians selected by Safeeo when and as often as Safeco may reasonably require.” This is one of the conditions precedent to arbitration. Frager v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 155 Conn. 270, 277. The exhibits fail to disclose any waiver of the condition on the part of the plaintiff. The most that can be said for the defendants Santagata is that there was a misunderstanding concerning the effect of a termination of medical treatment. Compensation for pain and suffering can be recovered for a reasonable time in the future even though no permanency is claimed. Schultz v. Pivar, 370 Pa. 271, 279. The plaintiff is making a reasonable request, especially when the defendants Santagata do not intend to terminate their claim for pain and suffering contemporaneously with medical treatment. The stay is granted, subject, however, to restoration on compliance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.2d 132, 29 Conn. Super. Ct. 300, 29 Conn. Supp. 300, 1971 Conn. Super. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safeco-insurance-co-of-america-v-santagata-connsuperct-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack