| In This Issue |
Halloran & Sage Successfully Defends Insurer in Negligent Failure to Settle Case
Defending Against Stipulated Judgments
Halloran & Sage Successfully Obtains Summary Judgment for Excess Insurers in Federal Lawsuit Stemming from a Fatal Electrical Explosion
Halloran & Sage Successfully Argues Arbitration Agreement Exempts A Party From Apportionment
|
| Meet Our Insurance Law Group | |
Associates
Joseph J. Arcata, III
|
|
|
 Following a trial to the court, Daniel Scapellati and Joseph "Jay" Arcata, of Halloran & Sage's Insurance Law Group, recently obtained a verdict in favor of their insurer-client in the case Carford v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2012 WL 4040337 (Conn.Super.), in which the plaintiff claimed that the insurer negligently failed to tender its $1,000,000 policy limit when it was reasonable to do so. In finding for the defendant, Judge Theodore Tyma held that the defendant "acted reasonably and responsibly in undertaking to investigate and evaluate the claims of the plaintiffs." Judge Tyma further held that "the mere fact that the case could have been, but was not, settled within policy limits would not impose liability on the defendants," opining that in determining whether to accept or reject a settlement offer, an insurer may equally weigh its own interests with that of its insured. |
|
Does the Superior Court's decision in Great American Ins. Co. v. Glownia, 1997 WL 149675 (Superior Court, J.D. of New London, March 20, 1997) (O'Keefe, J.), open the door for an insurer to argue that it is not bound by a stipulated judgment entered into between its insured and an injured plaintiff where the insurer provided a defense to its insured in the underlying action? We believe it does and, if given the opportunity, Connecticut courts should refuse to bind defending insurers to such stipulated judgments.
|
Halloran & Sage Successfully Obtains Summary Judgment for Excess Insurer in Federal Lawsuit Stemming from a Fatal Electrical ExplosionBy Tracy L. Montalbano
In Northeast Utilities Service Co., et al. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., et al., No. 3:08-CV-01673 (CSH) (D. Conn., July 12, 2012), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Haight, J.) held that the defendant-insurers did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs, Northeast Utilities Service Company ("NUSCO") and Connecticut Light and Power Company ("CL&P"), under a commercial general liability policy issued by Utica Mutual Insurance Company ("Utica") and an excess policy issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul").
|
|
 In Girolametti et al. v. City of Danbury et al., 2011 WL 3849137 (Docket Nos. X06-CV-10-6011711 S, X06-CV-11-6011734 S) (Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury, August 2, 2012), the Connecticut Superior Court addressed an issue of first impression, namely whether an agreement between parties to submit to unrestricted arbitration means that the parties have reached a settlement, rending each party a "settled party" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(c). |
|
