CONNECTICUT INSURANCE LAW – Subsequently discovered injury did not make unknown driver a hit-and-run driver

2014-09-16 | Joseph M. Busher
jmbusher@jacksonokeefe.com

Category: Auto Accidents

Joseph M. Busher

After the two car accident, the drivers got out, spoke to each other and agreed there was no damage.  Later the plaintiff’s brought a UM claim against his insurer claiming the other driver qualified as a hit-an- run driver because the plaintiff did not have his identity.  The Superior Court grants the insurers summary judgment motion.  Carter v. Philadelphia Ins. Co. (July 30, 2014)

If you have a possible claim, you will need to review your options timely. For assistance, call the attorneys at Jackson O’Keefe now at (860) 278-4040.

With offices in Southington and Wethersfield, as well as satellite offices in East Haddam, Bloomfield and Farmington, our lawyers strive to meet the needs of area residents, making getting your legal services easier than ever.  Call us now to speak with us about your case.  860 278 4040

Share this:



Latest News

Posted on 7/10/2017


Posted on 7/10/2017


Posted on 7/10/2017


Posted on 7/10/2017


Posted on 7/10/2017


Posted on 7/5/2017


Posted on 7/5/2017


Posted on 5/4/2017


More Articles
best.jpg
Martindale---Hubble.jpg
SUPER-LAWYERS.jpg
BAR-REGISTER.jpg
CLM.jpg
top-attorneys-ct.jpg