It isn’t every day that the state Supreme Court gets to stitch up a potential hole in the insurance safety net. That may be the reason all seven justices signed on en banc for the precedent that helped Carol Fontaine get paid for her loss of consortium.
They ruled that the state guarantor of an insolvent insurer can’t avoid payment on grounds that it didn’t actually write the ambiguous policy language that triggers payment. The decision in Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Fontaine was officially released July 4.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
