Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gaddy v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

September 3, 2019

CHARLES H. GADDY
v.
MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.[*]

          Argued May 28, 2019

         Procedural History

         Action seeking, inter alia, to recover proceeds allegedly due under an insurance policy issued by the defendants, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Noble, J., denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          Mario Cerame, with whom, on the brief, were Juri E. Taalman, Joseph R. Serrantino and Timothy Brig-nole, for the appellant (plaintiff).

          Beverly Knapp Anderson, for the appellees (defendants).

          Bright, Devlin and Eveleigh, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         The plaintiff, Charles H. Gaddy, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company and United States Liability Insurance Group. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We disagree.

         The claims raised by the plaintiff on appeal essentially are the same claims he raised in the trial court when he opposed the defendants' motion for summary judgment and argued in favor of his own motion for summary judgment. We have examined the record on appeal, including the briefs and arguments of the parties, and we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court, Noble, J. Because Judge Noble's memorandum of decision also fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, [1] we adopt the trial court's well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. See Gaddy v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-16-6066237-S (October 16, 2017) (reprinted at 192 Conn.App., A.3d). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat those facts or the discussion here. See, e.g., Tzovolos v. Wiseman, 300 Conn. 247, 253-54, 12 A.3d 563 (2011).

         The judgment is affirmed.

         APPENDIX

         Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford File No. CV-16-6066237-S

         Memorandum filed October 16, 2017

         Proceedings

         Memorandum of decision on motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motion granted; plaintiff's motion denied.

         Juri E. Taalman and Joseph R. Serrantino, for the plaintiff.

         Beverly Knapp Anderson and Carmine Annunziata, for the defendants.

         OPINION

          NOBLE, J.

         Before the court are motions for summary judgment by each party. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

         FACTS

         On February 19, 2016, the plaintiff, Charles Gaddy, commenced the present action against the defendants, the Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company (Mount Vernon) and the United States Liability Insurance Group (USLI).[1] In the amended complaint dated March 6, 2017, the plaintiff alleges that his former insurance agent, the Hunt Group, LLC (Hunt Group), was insured by Mount Vernon and USLI. The plaintiff owned property, which was insured under a policy of insurance (policy) for property and casualty loss with the Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale.) On May 19, 2003, the plaintiff provided the Hunt Group with funds for the renewal of the policy. On or before June 14, 2003, the Hunt Group failed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.