General Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. JASON MORTARA (AC 34331) DiPentima, C. J., and Robinson and Lavery, Js. Argued January 2 officially released March 26, 2013 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, A. Robinson, J.) David A. Leff, for the appellant (defendant). Michael M. Wilson, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Jason Mortara, appeals from the judgment of the trial court vacating an arbitration award rendered in his favor. The arbitration occurred as a result of an underinsured motorist claim that the defendant had asserted against the plaintiff, General Accident Insurance Company, for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place in New Jersey. In reaching its award, the majority of the divided arbitration panel determined that, pursuant to Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 641 A.2d 783 (1994), New Jersey law applied and, further, that the defendant had complied with the procedural law of that state to receive underinsured motorist benefits. The plaintiff filed an application to vacate the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).1 In rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the court concluded that Connecticut, rather than New Jersey law, applied and accordingly, granted the plaintiff s application to vacate the award and denied the defendant s motion to confirm it. This appeal followed. Our examination of the record and briefs in light of the applicable law along with our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment should be affirmed. On the facts of this case, the issues properly were resolved in the court s complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See General Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara, 52 Conn. Sup. 522, A.3d (2012). We therefore adopt it as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn. App. 499, 500, A.3d (2013); Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn. App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011). The judgment is affirmed. 1 General Statutes § 52-418 (a) provides in relevant part: Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court . . . shall make an order vacating the award . . . (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
