Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

Decision Date09 January 1986
Citation198 Conn. 803,503 A.2d 172
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSOUPER SPUD, INCORPORATED v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY.

Joel Z. Green, Bridgeport, in support of the petition.

Arnold J. Bai, with whom, on the brief, was Garie J. Mulcahey, Bridgeport, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 5 Conn.App. 579, 501 A.2d 1214, is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Liberty Mutual v. Lone Star Industries
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 24, 2009
    ...against...." Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn.App. 579, 585, 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803, 503 A.2d 172 (1986); accord Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 550-51, 791 A.2d 489 (2002) (insurer has burden of p......
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Namerow
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2001
    ...A.2d 473 (1988), and Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803, 503 A.2d 172 (1986), that the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court had interpreted as assertions of the civil arson defense. The defendants in the pre......
  • Verrastro v. Middlesex Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1988
    ...Appellate Court. Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn.App. 579, 585, 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803, 503 A.2d 172 (1986). The minority of jurisdictions that apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to the arson special defense appear to rely up......
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Namerow
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 22, 2002
    ...A.2d 473 (1988), and Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803, 503 A.2d 172 (1986), which language this court and the Appellate Court had interpreted as assertions of the arson defense. The defendants argued that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT