Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Connecticut Supreme Court resists easy division into neat ideological voting blocs. The past year proved, once again, the futility of labeling our Justices as “liberal,” or “conservative”: Justice Richard Palmer, for example, wrote two opinions that expanded the rights of criminal defendants, State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012), and State v. Rose, 305 Conn. 594 (2012), but also, at the very end of the last Court year, authored a scathing pro-prosecution dissent, State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 (2012) (He was joined by Justice Peter Zarella, the one member of the Court who merits a conservative label.)
Supreme Court Insurance Law: New Burden Put On Insurers’ Shoulders
By JOSEPH J. CHERICO
On March 27, 2012, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a decision in Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 304 Conn. 179 (2012), which now places the burden on insurers to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were prejudiced by late notice of claims under insurance policies in order to deny coverage on that ground.
