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
...