May 16, 2019
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Robert B.
Jennifer B. Levine, with whom was Harvey L. Levine, New
Britain, for the appellant (defendant).
T. Newbury, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Ondi
A. Smith, for the appellee (plaintiff).
C. J., and Elgo and Sullivan, Js.
Conn.App. 621] This declaratory judgment action arises from
an automobile crash that occurred in 2010 involving the
defendant, Michelle Levine. The defendant appeals from the
trial courts rendering of summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, the Amica Mutual Insurance Company. On appeal, the
defendant claims that the trial court erred when it concluded
that (1) the provision in the plaintiffs automobile
insurance policy requiring the defendant to undergo an
independent medical examination (IME) at the plaintiffs
request was not void as against public policy, (2) the
provision [192 Conn.App. 622] requiring the defendant to
undergo an IME was reasonable and the defendants refusal to
attend was unreasonable, (3) the defendant had breached the
policys cooperation clause for failing to attend the IME
because that determination was predicated on an improper
allocation of the burden of proof, and (4) there was no issue
of material fact as to whether the plaintiff properly had
reserved its rights to bring the present action. We disagree
and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
examined the record on appeal, including the briefs and
arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of
the trial court should be affirmed. The issues raised by the
plaintiff were resolved properly in a careful and thorough
memorandum of decision written by the trial court. Because
the trial courts memorandum of decision fully addresses the
arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt the trial
courts well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts
and the applicable law on those issues. See Amica Mutual
Ins. Co. v. Levine, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No.
CV- 16-6064569-S, 2017 WL 3975450 (July 31, 2017)
(reprinted at [192 Conn.App. 623] 192 Conn.App. 620, 218 A.3d
188, 2019 WL 4252112). 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
judgment is affirmed.
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford File No.
Memorandum filed July 31, 2017
Memorandum of decision on plaintiffs motion for summary