Amica Mutual Insurance Company v. Levine

         Argued May 16, 2019

Page 189

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 190

         The Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Robert B. Shapiro, J.

         Affirmed.

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

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

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

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

Page 191

          [192 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 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 [192 Conn.App. 622] 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, 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 563 (2011).

          The judgment is affirmed.

          APPENDIX

          AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

          v.

         MICHELLE LEVINE^[*]

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

          Memorandum filed July 31, 2017

          Proceedings

          Memorandum of decision on plaintiff’s motion for summary ...