Court Opinion

ID: 9452732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:49:56.900669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:20.033625
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(concurring) .
I join in the majority opinion, except parts (II) (B) and (D). Since Connecticut did not require automobile title registration in 1952, evidence as to the use of the automobile and as to its alleged informal transfer to the corporation seems to me admissible to show that the automobile was not excluded from coverage on the ground that David Shanen “owned” it. I agree with the majority that evidence that an automobile was occasionally used in the corporation’s business would not suffice to show that the corporation owned it; but this does not mean that evidence of use is inadmissible.
I concur in the result, despite my belief that evidence of transfer to and use by the corporation was admissible, because, as the majority points out, the record shows that the substance of David Shanen’s testimony regarding both was before the jury.