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 Ins. Co.

Appellate Court of Connecticut

September 3, 2019

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

         Argued May 28, 2019

         

Page 1083

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1084

          Appeal from Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, Noble, J.

         COUNSEL:

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

          Beverly Knapp Anderson, for the appellees (defendants).

          Judges: Bright, Devlin and Eveleigh, Js.

          OPINION

Page 1085

          [192 Conn.App. 338] 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 [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,[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.

          Concur

Page 1086

          [192 Conn.App. 340] 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 [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.

          The 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). ...


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.