ACE USA v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, No. CV 03 0828066 S (Jan. 26, 2004)


ACE USA v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY.

2004 Ct. Sup. 1311
No. CV 03 0828066 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
January 26, 2004

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

NOTICE
BEACH, JUDGE.

Following the argument held on December 17, 2003, and reading the file and the authorities cited by both sides, I have come to the following conclusions:

1) The issues raised by the “commutation agreement” are properly considered in the arbitration context rather than the court arena;

2) The issue of standing is properly resolved by a court hearing. Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Harrison, 264 Conn. 829
(2003). The issue is quite narrow, however, and ought to be limited to the issue of whether Ace is properly a successor in interest to Central. Discovery limited to that issue is appropriate. Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48
(1983).

3) All other issues, with one possible exception, are to be resolved in arbitration, if Ace has standing to arbitrate. The possible exception is the statute of limitations issue as illustrated, perhaps, by Wynn v. Metropolitan Property Casualty Co., 228 Conn. 436 (1994).

4) The parties shall contact civil caseflow to schedule a status conference, for the purpose of establishing an abbreviated period of discovery and a hearing date. Parties may address the appropriate forum for the statute of limitations issue at the hearing.

BEACH, JUDGE. CT Page 1312