May 31, 2018
Michael Lettiero, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Group who resides in the firm’s Hartford, CT office, examines the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pasiak, 173 A.3d 888 (Conn. 2017), a case about relitigating facts and issues in a mixed claim following an adverse judgment or settlement. Mike initially sets the stage by laying out the unsettled questions associated with Connecticut’s estoppel rule. He then discusses the significance of the court’s holding, which clarified the two bases under which an insurer may litigate facts and coverage questions after a judgment has been entered in an underlying lawsuit. Using Pasiak’s concurrence as an example, Mike offers insights into how courts can apply these bases in common factual scenario. Mike concludes by identifying unanswered questions relating to Connecticut’s unsettled independent counsel rule.