Roasenda v. Zabriske

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• interpreting virtually identical provision and concluding that there was no collapse when homeowners ‘‘[still] reside in their home and have not alleged that they cannot or do not use it for its ‘current intended purpose’ ’’
• “Connecticut law requires a breach of contract in order to plead bad faith.” “[B]ecause [the insureds] have failed to plead a plausible breach of contract claim, no CUTPA or CUIPA claim can follow.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).