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.

Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Levine

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

September 10, 2019

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MICHELLE LEVINE [*]

          Argued May 16, 2019

         Procedural History

         Action for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the parties under a provision in a certain insurance policy issued by the plaintiff requiring the defendant to undergo an independent medical examination, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Shapiro, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford File No. CV-16-6064569-S

          Jennifer B. Levine, with whom was Harvey L. Levine, for the appellant (defendant).

          Philip T. Newbury, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Ondi A. Smith, for the appellee (plaintiff).

          DiPentima, C. J., and Elgo and Sullivan, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         This declaratory judgment action arises from an automobile crash that occurred in 2010 involving the defendant, Michelle Levine. The defendant appeals from the trial court's 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 plaintiff's automobile insurance policy requiring the defendant to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) at the plaintiff's request was not void as against public policy, (2) the provision requiring the defendant to undergo an IME was reasonable and the defendant's refusal to attend was unreasonable, (3) the defendant had breached the policy's 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.

         We have 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 court's memorandum of decision 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 Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Levine, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-16-6064569-S (July 31, 2017) (reprinted at 192 Conn.App. 623, 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

         Memorandum filed July 31, 2017

         Proceedings

         Memorandum of decision on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Motion granted.

         OPINION

          SHAPIRO, J.

         This matter is before the court concerning the plaintiff Amica Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment (#104) (motion). The court heard oral argument concerning the motion on May 30, 2017. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

         I

...


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.