Opinion
(14844)
Decided October 5, 1993
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 250 (AC 11477), is granted, limited to the following issue:
"Whether the Appellate Court correctly held that there was substantial evidence to support the arbitrators' conclusion that when the plaintiff was injured he was not operating a `replacement vehicle' and that he was therefore not covered by the uninsured motorist provisions of the two insurance policies issued by the defendant?"
William I. Garfinkel, in support of the petition.
James E. Kernan, in opposition.