File 536 | Conn. Super. Ct. | Dec 2, 1958
In this case, which is an action claiming malpractice, the plaintiff moves for production and inspection as to insurance coverage. Besides claiming as one of the reasons therefor the desire to know whether she will be in a position to recover if she obtains a judgment, because of the limited value of her present attachment, the plaintiff also claims as "an even more compelling reason why the policy should be produced is that the complaint alleges a violation of Section 4552 of the General Statutes of Connecticut [Rev. 1949] on the part of *169 the defendant," and then this latter is followed up with the claim that if upon disclosure a policy of insurance is produced which does not cover a violation of that statute, the plaintiff might desire to eliminate from her complaint a violation of the statute as one of her grounds of action.
On the subject of disclosure of insurance in general and also on the first reason advanced by the plaintiff in this case, reference may be had to the memorandum on the question of insurance coverage, this day filed, in Verrastro v. Grecco,
For the reasons stated, the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's motion for production and inspection is sustained and the motion denied and the order thereon rescinded.