Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)

Citation: Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
Parent Document: Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2006-07-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7901150/middlesex-mutual-assurance-co-v-vaszil/ ↗

Full Text

1,137 chars

The Appellate Court’s opinion sets forth the following relevant facts. “In 2001, Brian Vaszil was a student at the University of Connecticut. He occupied one unit of an apartment building at Hunting Heights in Storrs, pursuant to a written lease with the owner, Hunting .... Robert Vaszil, Brian Vaszil’s father, cosigned the lease as a guarantor. . . . The lease between Hunting and the defendants required that the tenant not damage the apartment, repair any damage prior to leaving the building and reimburse Hunting for any amount expended to fix damage.2 The lease did not contain the *32word subrogation or a specific provision stating that Hunting’s insurer had a right of subrogation. ” Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, supra, 89 Conn. App. 484-85. “The plaintiff provided insurance for Hunting. The insurance policy specified that if Hunting had any right to recover damages from another party, those rights were deemed transferred to the plaintiff to the extent that it paid Hunting. It also required Hunting to do everything necessary to secure those rights and to do nothing after the loss to impair them.” Id., 484.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text