DocketNumber: File No. 14435
Citation Numbers: 176 A.2d 883, 23 Conn. Super. Ct. 70, 23 Conn. Supp. 70
Judges: MacDONALD, J.
Filed Date: 3/3/1961
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
An examination of the two exhibits filed at the argument of this motion discloses clearly that defendant, after a prompt notification to plaintiffs of its intention to proceed under the arbitration clause contained in the insurance policy in question, apparently allowed plaintiffs' civil action to proceed, step by step, in this court without further attempt to select a third arbitrator or without even any suggestion to plaintiffs that arbitration should be followed rather than court action.
Certainly the record of the court proceedings, as reviewed chronologically in plaintiffs' brief, discloses *Page 71 a course of conduct on the part of defendant which led plaintiffs to believe that the original claim for arbitration had been waived and induced them to proceed with the court action — even though the reasons for resulting delays in procedure may have been shared somewhat between the parties.
In Zapon v. Southern New England ContractingCo., 10 Conn. Sup. 390, [
The reference to defendant's possible remedy by moving to stay proceedings does not indicate that such a motion would be granted either on the facts of that case or of this one. Nor is the case of Bernhard
v. Rochester German Ins. Co.,
Our Supreme Court has stated in Batter BuildingMaterials Co. v. Kirschner,
To paraphrase the last sentence of the opinion of the court in the Batter Building case, supra, 13, it would appear that this court can and should hold as a matter of law, from the chronological facts appearing from the docket and file of this case and from exhibits, that the time between defendant's original demand for arbitration (1955) and the filing of this motion (1960), which was over five years, was unreasonable in view of the fact that the pleadings were closed in 1958, the case claimed to the jury and the jury fee of $50 paid by plaintiffs, the case pretried in New Haven, marked "ready" on the trial list in New Haven many times and, finally, at defendant's own suggestion and by mutual consent, transferred to this county in May, 1960, after which the parties were actually in court and ready to proceed to trial in November, 1960, before this motion was filed.
The motion for a stay is denied.