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
655 charsOn appeal to this court, the defendants contend that DiLullo requires specific, express language conferring on an insurer the right of subrogation against a tenant in order to allow the plaintiff to bring the present subro-gation action. We agree with the defendants and the trial court in this case that “the provisions of the lease obligating the tenant not to cause damage to the apartment and to be responsible for repairing any such [damage] ... do not rise to a level of creating an express agreement noticing and obligating the tenant to be responsible for the fire loss . . . [and] that no other provision of the lease creates such an obligation.”