U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2012

Daimlerchrysler Insurance Ex Rel. Chrysler Financial Co. v. Pambianchi

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided May 15, 2012 · Christopher, Droney, Lohier, Raymond, Richard, Wesley

469 F. App'x 65

Counsel

David Gordon, Gordon & Haffner, LLP, Harrison, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellanl^Cross-Appellee., Brian J. Wheelin, (Brian E. Moran, on the brief), Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Counter-Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant., Robert Mizrahi, Buckley & Curtis, P.A., New York, NY, for Third-Party Defendant-Cross-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Homesite Ins. Co. v. Brezniak (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2022)
Paltz v. Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2022)
Bille v. Coverall North America, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2020)
Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan, Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2016)
Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (Conn. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.), denying Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for prejudgment interest. Defendant-Cross-Appellant John Pambianchi cross-appeals from the district court’s grant of Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that “[sjummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).

Upon such review, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in *66 Plaintiff-Appellant’s favor for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough Memorandum and Order.

We review the district court’s denial of Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion. See Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. El Constructors, Inc., 239 Conn. 708, 734, 687 A.2d 506 (1997). We do not reach the question on which the court based its decision, namely, whether DaimlerChrysler Insurance sufficiently raised the issue of prejudgment interest to permit consideration of whether Pambianchi wrongfully withheld money due to DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company. Instead, we find that the district court’s determination that equitable considerations counseled against awarding prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.