Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Insurance case brief summary
757 A.2d 526 (2000)
CASE FACTS
Six months after the execution of a settlement agreement and the issuance of the annuity, plaintiff assignor, who was facing financial troubles, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking approval under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225f to transfer his right to the remaining annuity payments to the intervening plaintiff, the assignee. Defendant, the issuer of the annuity contract, objected to the assignment because the annuity contract contained an antiassignment provision. The trial court approved the transfer of the annuity payments, and defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
The judgment was affirmed. The annuity contract's antiassignment provision did not contain any express language limiting the power to assign or voiding the assignment itself. Thus, plaintiff's assignment to the intervening plaintiff was valid and enforceable despite plaintiff's breach of the antiassignment provision. However, defendant was free to sue either plaintiff or the intervening plaintiff for breach of contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
757 A.2d 526 (2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant, the issuer of the annuity
contract, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court in the Judicial
District of Ansonia-Milford (Connecticut), which approved the
transfer by plaintiff assignor of payments due to him under an
annuity issued pursuant to the structured settlement agreement.CASE FACTS
Six months after the execution of a settlement agreement and the issuance of the annuity, plaintiff assignor, who was facing financial troubles, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking approval under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225f to transfer his right to the remaining annuity payments to the intervening plaintiff, the assignee. Defendant, the issuer of the annuity contract, objected to the assignment because the annuity contract contained an antiassignment provision. The trial court approved the transfer of the annuity payments, and defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the annuity contract's antiassignment provision limited plaintiff's right to assign, but not his power to do so.
- The antiassignment provision did not contain any express language limiting the power to assign or voiding the assignment itself.
- Therefore, plaintiff's assignment to the intervening plaintiff was valid and enforceable despite plaintiff's breach of the annuity contract's antiassignment provision.
- However, the court also held that defendant was free to sue either plaintiff or the intervening plaintiff for breach of contract.
The judgment was affirmed. The annuity contract's antiassignment provision did not contain any express language limiting the power to assign or voiding the assignment itself. Thus, plaintiff's assignment to the intervening plaintiff was valid and enforceable despite plaintiff's breach of the antiassignment provision. However, defendant was free to sue either plaintiff or the intervening plaintiff for breach of contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment