*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. 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 advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears 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 Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM KRAMER & ASSOCIATES, LLC (SC 20130) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff insurance company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment, rendered by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, for the defendant claims adjuster after the District Court set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that a continuing course of conduct tolled the statutory (§ 52-577) three year limitation period applicable to the plaintiff’s action. In 2005, a hurricane damaged certain commercial property owned by the plaintiff’s insured. The plaintiff hired the defen- dant as its independent adjuster. As the plaintiff’s adjuster, the defendant was responsible for, inter alia, inspecting the property, estimating and working with the insured to determine the value of the loss, and identi- fying any mortgages on the insured property. In 2006, the insured’s retail broker sent a letter to O, the individual adjuster assigned by the defendant to the insured’s claims. That letter included, on the reverse side, a schedule listing the mortgages on all of the insured’s properties, including a mortgage on the property at issue and the name of the mortgagee. Prior to issuing the final insurance claim payment in March, 2007, to the insured for the property damage, the plaintiff received assurances from O and M, also an employee of the defendant, that there were no mortgages on the property. In 2009, the bank that held the mortgage on the property brought an action against third parties, includ- ing the defendant, alleging that they failed to protect its interest in the property. M notified the plaintiff of the bank’s action, and the plaintiff offered to assist the defendant with its responsibility to produce ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals