CHARLES H. GADDY
MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.
May 28, 2019
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
from Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford,
Cerame, with whom, on the brief, were Juri E. Taalman, Joseph
R. Serrantino and Timothy Brignole, for the appellant
Beverly Knapp Anderson, for the appellees (defendants).
Judges: Bright, Devlin and Eveleigh, Js.
Conn.App. 338] PER CURIAM.
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
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 [192 Conn.App. 339]
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, 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).
judgment is affirmed.
Conn.App. 340] NOBLE, J.
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.
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). 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 [192 Conn.App. 341] 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 to timely forward the funds to
Scottsdale, which caused the policy to lapse. On that date,
the plaintiff experienced a fire loss to the property that
was to have been insured by Scottsdale.
plaintiff brought suit in 2006 against the Hunt Group,
claiming negligence. See Gaddy v. Hunt Group, LLC,
Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No.
CV-06-05003718-S. The defendants thereafter filed a complaint
against Hunt Group in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut (District Court action) seeking a
declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or
defend the Hunt Group for its failure to cooperate with the
defendants. See Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Hunt Group,
LLC, United States District Court, Docket No. 3:06
CV-02006 (CFD) (D. Conn. 2006). ...