Quinn v. Allstate Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Keyes v. Pennsylvania General Accident Ins. Co.

    695 A.2d 543 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    The contract of insurance in the present case states clearly that General Accident will only pay damages that an insured would be entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle. See also Quinn v. All state Ins. Co., 37 Conn. App. 188, 655 A.2d 787 (1995);Gallagher v. Covenant Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV93044908S (August 18, 1994) (Skolnick, J.); Samele v. Masucci, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV890700438S (August 21, 1992) ( 7 C.S.C.R. 1054) (Spada, J.). Paul J. Mason is named on the declarations page of the policy.

  2. Bulone v. United Services Auto. Ass'n

    660 So. 2d 399 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that the UM statute does not require an automobile policy to treat vehicles as both insured for purposes of liability coverage and uninsured for purposes of UM coverage

    Although the differences among state statutes make other states' cases merely persuasive, the Second District cases are similar to cases from other states. See Quinn v. Allstate Ins. Co., 37 Conn. App. 188, 655 A.2d 787 (1995); Millers Casualty Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 100 Wn.2d 1, 665 P.2d 891 (1983); Widiss, supra, ยงยง 5.8, 33.8, 35.5. III.