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
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, 279 Conn. 28 (2006)
Full Text
1,260 charsThereafter, the Appellate Court noted that, under DiLullo v. Joseph, 259 Conn. 847, 853, 792 A.2d 819 *33(2002), “whether subrogation would or would not apply ordinarily would depend ... on a case-by-case analysis of the language of the insurance policies and leases involved.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, supra, 89 Conn. App. 487. The Appellate Court then turned to the lease, concluding that its provisions obligating the defendants to repair or to pay for any damage they caused were sufficient to permit subrogation. Id., 487-88. It rejected the defendants’ contention that DiLullo and public policy require that the lease contain express subrogation language creating such a right. Id., 488-89. The court reasoned that the tortfeasor, who was on notice of his liability for damages, otherwise would be unjustly enriched and should not benefit simply because the landlord had the foresight to obtain insurance coverage. Id., 489-91. Judge Dranginis dissented, contending that neither the law of equitable subrogation, as expressed in DiLullo, nor the tenets of contract construction supported a right of subrogation in the present case. Id., 491 (Dranginis, J., dissenting). This certified appeal followed.