Orlando v. Liburd
Citations
- 353 Conn. 845
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the trial court's partial judgment in favor of N Co., the plaintiff's automobile insurer. The plaintiff had brought an action against the defendant L, seeking damages for, inter alia, diminution of value and loss of use of his vehicle in connection with an automobile accident allegedly caused by L's negligence. Thereafter, L impleaded N Co. and alleged that his insurer, S Co., had tendered to N Co. $25,000, which was the full liability coverage limit for property damage under L's insurance 846 JANUARY, 2026 353 Conn. 845 Orlando v. Liburd policy, based on N Co.'s alleged misrepresentation that the plaintiff had been made whole. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, alleging, inter alia, that N Co. was unjustly enriched when it prematurely accepted the $25,000 from S Co. and thereby reduced the amount of funds that otherwise would have been available to indemnify L in the plaintiff's negligence action, in violation of the make whole doctrine, which restricts an insurer's ability to enforce its right to subrogation until after the insured has been fully compensated, or made whole, for the insured's loss. The trial court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against N Co. as not ripe for adjudication. In affirming the trial court's partial judgment of dismissal, the Appellate Court concluded that the unjust enrichment claim was not ripe until the plaintiff first obtained a judgment against L because that claim was otherwise contingent on whether and to what extent the plaintiff could recover from L and on L's ability to satisfy the hypothetical judgment. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that his unjust enrichment claim was ripe for adjudication. Held: The Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim on ripeness grounds, and, ac
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “our case law clearly establishes that a plaintiff has a right to recover for . . . diminution in property value, even if his vehicle has been repaired”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Chandler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNinth Circuit· 2010-03-17· cited 381×
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & KotkinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-09-15· cited 205×
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. TagerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-22· cited 105×
- Orselet v. DeMatteoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-03-15· cited 99×
- Winkelmann v. Excelsior InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals· 1995-05-09· cited 96×
- New York Civil Liberties Union v. GrandeauSecond Circuit· 2008-06-06· cited 84×
- Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O'NeillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-06-09· cited 62×
- Hasper v. Center Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court· 2006-10-23· cited 38×
- Twitter, Inc. v. Ken PaxtonNinth Circuit· 2022-03-02· cited 34×
- Esposito v. SpecyalskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-04-06· cited 28×
- Paulson v. Allstate InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court· 2003-07-08· cited 26×
- Anderson v. Gengras Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1954-11-23· cited 20×
- Stevens v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-06-13· cited 19×
- Seymour v. Region One Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-08-20· cited 18×
- Saunders v. KDFBS, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-05-18· cited 17×
- Giannoni v. Commissioner of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-08-09· cited 15×
- Allstate Insurance v. PalumboSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-05-18· cited 14×
- Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLPSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-07-24· cited 10×
- Cadle Co. v. D'ADDARIOConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-10-28· cited 9×
- Farmers Texas County Mutual v. Hertz Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-05-22· cited 9×
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.