Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JEROME KINSEY v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY (SC 17182)
Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Argued January 7, 2005--officially released March 7, 2006

Philip T. Newbury, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Martha A. Shaw, for the appellant (defendant). Alan Scott Pickel, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

PALMER, J. The defendant, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court confirming an arbitration decision in favor of the plaintiff, Jerome Kinsey. This case arises out of an automobile accident in which the plaintiff, who was operating a vehicle owned by his employer and insured under a commercial fleet automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant, sustained injuries that were caused by an underinsured motorist. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that a written request by the plaintiff's employer for a reduction in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under its commercial fleet policy was ineffective because certain language in the informed consent form in which the request was made was not in twelvepoint type as required by General Statutes

Download Kinsey v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co..pdf

Connecticut Law