Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02198-PCD

Document 428

Filed 12/13/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________________ ) ) TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Third Party Defendant. )

Civil No. 301CV2198(PCD)

December 10, 2004

TRUSTMARK'S CITATION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH TIG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Trustmark respectfully submits this Citation Of Additional Authority in connection with TIG's Motion for Summary Judgment. In accordance with this Court's standing order, motions are not filed until all the briefing is complete and all the briefs are filed at the same time. Trustmark was served with TIG's Motion on June 27, 2003 and served its Response on July 18, 2003. TIG's Reply was delayed until it could conclude the deposition of Trustmark's expert, Mr. Richard Jessel. Due to the intervening stay by the Second Circuit, the deposition was concluded on November 5, 2004. Accordingly, Trustmark received TIG's Reply on November 18, 2004 ­ over fifteen months after Trustmark served its Response. In its Reply, TIG asserts that Connecticut law would still apply the principle of lex loci delecti in tort cases in order to determine the appropriate choice of law. In connection with that

Case 3:01-cv-02198-PCD

Document 428

Filed 12/13/2004

Page 2 of 3

assertion, Trustmark wishes to bring to the Court's attention the following case decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court after Trustmark filed its Response: · Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 830 A.2d 752 (Sept. 23, 2003) (reaffirming that the Court had "expressly abandoned categorical allegiance to the doctrine of lex loci delecti" and applying the substantial relationship test set forth in 1 Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws §§ 6 and 145(1) (1971) (citing Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 641 A.2d 783 (1986)).

Trustmark notes that TIG failed to cite this precedent in its Reply. Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANT/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY

By:

/s/ Rowena A. Moffett Rowena A. Moffett, Esq. (ct 19811) BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP Its Attorney 271 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 Tel.: (203) 772-2600 Fax: (203) 562-2098 Email: [email protected]

-2-

Case 3:01-cv-02198-PCD

Document 428

Filed 12/13/2004

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of December, 2004 upon:

Frank F. Coulom, Jr., Esq. Marion B. Manzo, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Mark B. Holton, Esq. Kathryn E. Nealon, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166-0193 David J. Grais, Esq. Kathryn C. Ellsworth, Esq. DEWEY BALLANTINE LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6092 Counsel for Plaintiff Security Insurance Company of Hartford David A. Slossberg. Esq. Daniel J. Sagarin, Esq. HURWITZ & SAGARIN, LLC 147 N. Broad Street Milford, CT 06560 Harry P. Cohen. Esq. Brian J. O'Sullivan, Esq. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT 100 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Counsel for Third-Party Defendant TIG Insurance Company

/s/ Rowena A. Moffett Rowena A. Moffett, Esq. (ct19811)

-3-