DocketNumber: No. 35 58 13
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1875
Judges: RIPLEY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/27/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Plaintiff suggests that the defendant may have umbrella coverage for losses which might possibly provide a fund to cover CT Page 1876 plaintiff's claim and accordingly a question is presented as to this issue which would preclude granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
As the plaintiff/claimant in this matter is a domestic insurance carrier it not only has the benefit of this chapter to protect against losses brought about by insolvent carriers it is also subject to the limitations imposed by the Act. It is the court's conclusion that the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment should be granted since whether excess or other insurance may be available the plaintiff's loss is within the primary policy limits of the insolvent insurer and subject to the bar imposed for the benefit of the insured under 38-275(6)(c) C.G.S. See Cordani v. Rawlis,
George W. Ripley, Judge.