In Austin-Casares v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 Conn. LEXIS 409 (Dec. 3, 2013), the Connecticut Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, reversed a trial court’s decision, which held that the suit limitation provision unambiguously precluded a mortgagee from intervening in a suit when the motion to intervene was filed after the

The Second Circuit recently certified an important question to the New York State Court of Appeals, which, while presented in a remarkably straightforward manner, will likely have anything but a straightforward answer:

If a fire insurance policy contains

(1)  a provision allowing reimbursement of replacement costs only after the property was replaced and requiring the