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
1,618 charsAs the majority in the Appellate Court implicitly acknowledged, the lease in the present case does not contain the word subrogation or any other express3 language indicating that the plaintiff, as the landlord’s insurer, had the right to proceed against the defendants for damage negligently caused to Hunting’s property. Because DiLullo demands an express agreement between a landlord and a tenant for the landlord’s insurer to bring a successful action against a negligent tenant, in her dissenting opinion, Judge Dranginis noted, “[t]hat acknowledgment alone is sufficient to affirm the judgment of the trial court. The majority, however, has scrutinized the contract to infer an agreement between [Hunting] and the [defendants] regarding subrogation. DiLullo does not permit the inference of such an agreement. At best, the lease is ambiguous as to a tenant’s responsibility for damage negligently caused.” Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil, supra, 89 Conn. App. 499-500. Drawing on our well established principles of contract interpretation; see Levine v. Advest, Inc., 244 Conn. 732, 746, 714 A.2d 649 (1998) (contract is ambiguous if agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation); Rund v. Melillo, 63 Conn. App. 216, 220, 772 A.2d 774 (2001) (“[c]ontract language is unambiguous when it has a definite and precise meaning about which there is no reasonable basis for a difference *37of opinion” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Judge Dranginis, in her dissent, then pointed to various provisions in the lease demonstrating such ambiguity. We agree with the dissent.