Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)

Citation
Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)
Parent Document
Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 873 A.2d 1030 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2005-06-07

Other Sections in This Document (108)

Full Text

860 chars
I recognize that if this court were to conclude that a motion for summary judgment involved a genuine issue of material *1042 fact decided by the trial court, the remedy would be to reverse the judgment and to remand the matter for further proceedings. Practically speaking, the outcome would be no different from what the majority has ordered; but the legal effect of the majority's decision is inconsistent with DiLullo v. Joseph, supra, 259 Conn. at 850, 792 A.2d 819, which requires an express or specific agreement between the landlord and the tenant regarding an insurer's right of equitable subrogation. Not only did the majority take on the job of construing an ambiguous contract on a motion for summary judgment, it misapplied the substantive law of equitable subrogation regarding a tenancy. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent, respectfully. NOTES