The Connecticut Supreme Court recently issued two important decisions affecting commonly litigated aspects of insurance coverage. In the first case, Guarino v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance, 315 Conn. 249 (Jan. 6, 2015), the court clarified and reaffirmed a central tenet of underinsured motorist law. In the second case, Electrical Contractors v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 314 Conn. 749 (Dec. 16, 2014), the court addressed a critical aspect of surety law.
A typical underinsured motorist claim follows a routine pattern. An injured party is involved in an accident, and after exhausting the at-fault motorist’s limits of liability insurance through settlement or judgment, seeks recovery from his or her own underinsured motorist carrier. The amount recovered from the tortfeasor is subtracted from the limits of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist coverage, leaving available to the plaintiff the difference between what he or she has already recovered and the amount of his or her policy limit.
This content has been archived.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]
