Menard v. State
Citations
- 208 Conn. App. 303
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, M and C, Connecticut State Police troopers who suffered injuries when a motor vehicle driven by a nonparty tortfeasor, B, struck a police cruiser, sending it into physical contact with them, sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits allegedly due under insurance coverage provided by the defendant state of Connecticut, a self-insurer, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Following a bench trial, the trial court found, inter alia, that, to the extent B was underinsured, the state was contractually obligated to provide coverage to the plain- tiffs, the plaintiffs' claims for damages caused by the alleged post-trau- matic stress disorder (PTSD) they developed were not compensable under the underinsured motorist claims statute (§ 38a-336), and it calcu- lated the plaintiffs' damages. The plaintiffs filed a joint appeal to this court. The parties then filed a stipulation before the trial court regarding sums that the plaintiffs had already received, and the court held a hearing to consider any reductions to the plaintiffs' damages. It concluded that certain workers' compensation benefits the plaintiffs had received were deductible from the plaintiffs' damages, but that certain recoveries the plaintiffs received under the Dram Shop Act (§ 30-102) were not, adjusted the plaintiffs' damages accordingly, and rendered judgments for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed an amended joint appeal, and the state filed a cross appeal to this court. Held: 1. This court concluded that the plaintiffs' original joint appeal was not taken from final judgments and it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs' amended joint appeal was jurisdic- tionally proper; final judgments were not rendered in the trial court until the court had reduced the plaintiffs' damages to account for certain sums received by the plaintiffs, which occurred after the original appeal had been filed; the plaintiffs' amended joint appeal encomp
Judges: Bright; Moll; Bear
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- American Universal Insurance v. DelGrecoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-09-01· cited 364×
- Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1992-06-17· cited 329×
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus CafeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-05-02· cited 95×
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus CafeConnecticut Appellate Court· 1988-08-09· cited 94×
- Moore v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-13· cited 58×
- Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. FontaineSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-07-04· cited 56×
- Vitti v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-06-30· cited 55×
- Mahon v. B v. Unitron Manufacturing, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-12-11· cited 40×
- Taylor v. MucciSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-12· cited 29×
- Schurman v. SchurmanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-09-07· cited 23×
- Fahey v. Safeco Insurance of AmericaConnecticut Appellate Court· 1998-07-07· cited 22×
- Hunte v. Amica Mutual InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-03-05· cited 18×
- Rowe v. GouletConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-06-28· cited 18×
- Fileccia v. Nationwide Property & Casualty InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-12-06· cited 12×
- Piersa v. Phoenix InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-05-10· cited 6×
- Featherston v. Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-12-22· cited 3×
- Piersa v. Phoenix InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-05-11· cited 3×
- MSW Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Dept.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-02-23· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.