Authored by: Joseph Ciollo
Superior Court – Unfair Trade Practices – Standing
In Taylor et al v. Barham et al, the plaintiffs were owners of real property that was impacted by a release of gasoline from a tanker truck following a rollover accident. The defendant, Federated Service Insurance Company (“Federated”), issued a Commercial Package Policy and a Commercial Umbrella Liability to East River Energy. Neither policy named any of the plaintiffs as insureds or additional insureds, nor contained any provision that would make the plaintiffs insureds or additional insureds, nor contained any provision that would make the plaintiffs intended third-party beneficiaries. Federated moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert such claims. Federated argued that the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims should be dismissed as the Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are insureds under any insurance policy issued by Federated and that they only alleged that Federated received notice of the plaintiffs’ complaints of bodily injury and property damage resulting from the gasoline spill and that Federated’s insureds are jointly liable for the damage resulting from the collision. Federated further argued that while a private cause action is allowed under CUTPA for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”), that private cause of action is limited to contracting parties, intended third-party beneficiaries, or a claimant that has received an assignment or obtained a judgment against the insured. The Court held that in light of these undisputed facts, the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims were not yet ripe for adjudication and the plaintiffs lacked standing at this time to bring such claims. The motion to dismiss was granted.
Superior Court – Underinsured Motorist Coverage – Amount Of Coverage
In Moore v. Vazquez-Vasquez et al, the plaintiff was injured in a motor accident in Connecticut and subsequently filed an action to recover Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) benefits from her insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”). Liberty Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment on the following grounds: 1) since the plaintiff’s insurance policy with Liberty Mutual was created in the Louisiana and since the plaintiff rejected UIM coverage, she could not now seek such coverage in Connecticut; 2) in the alternative, the amount of UIM coverage available should be zero since the state mandated amount of UIM coverage was equal to the amount of liability coverage that was available from the tortfeasor and thus the plaintiff would not be an underinsured person. As to the first issue, the Court considered all material facts in the record and applied relevant principles for determining which state’s law should be followed in the case of a contract dispute. The Court found that Connecticut law, and not Louisiana law, should be followed in this case. Notably, the rejection of UIM coverage is not an option under Connecticut law. Through its alternative argument, Liberty Mutual requested that the Court find that the amount of the UIM coverage that Liberty Mutual was compelled to provide was the state minimum of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. The Court noted however, that the plaintiff’s policy with Liberty Mutual provided bodily injury coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence, and that under Connecticut law, the UIM coverage must mirror this amount. On this basis, the Court held that Liberty Mutual was required to provide UIM coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence, which exceeded the amount of liability coverage available from the tortfeasor thus qualifying the plaintiff to claim UIM benefits. The motion for summary judgment was denied.
Superior Court – Determination Of Accident / Occurrence – Multiple Motor Vehicle Collisions
In Filypiv v. Ennis et al, the plaintiff was operating her vehicle in in the left lane of three on the highway. The defendant, Norvin Ennis was traveling in the right lane of three. An unidentified tortfeasor was operating his/her vehicle in the center lane. Ennis collided with the vehicle in front of his vehicle and swerved into the center lane in front of the unidentified vehicle, thereby creating a dangerous situation on the road and causing the unidentified tortfeasor to swerve into the left lane into the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff’s vehicle then flipped over the highway divider and into oncoming traffic, thereby causing the plaintiff to sustain injuries. The plaintiff filed an action to recover Uninsured Motorist (“UM”) benefits from her insurer, Progressive Direct Insurance Company (“Progressive”). Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that a previous settlement with the plaintiff precluded her from additional recovery based on the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff’s objection to summary judgment argued that she was injured as the result of two motor vehicle accidents and that the previous settlement applied to only one of those accidents. In response, Progressive asserted that the undisputed facts showed there to only have been one accident, within the meaning of the relevant insurance policy and as that term has been construed by Connecticut courts. The record demonstrated that the plaintiff had already received $25,000 from Progressive “in full settlement and final discharge of all claims” under the policy for injuries “arising out of the ownership or operation of an uninsured automobile [owned by] Unknown and [operated by] Unknown, which occurred on or about March 4, 2022…” The plaintiff’s insurance policy with Progressive did not provide a definition of the terms accident or occurrence. The Court applied the following factors which have been considered by other Connecticut courts for determining the number of “accidents,” in situations involving multiple collisions: (1) the temporal proximity between the two collisions; (2) the spacial proximity between the two collisions; and (3) whether the two collisions were part of the same “causal continuum,” broken by intervening events or factors. The Court determined that based on the undisputed facts in the record, a reasonable fact finder could not conclude that the plaintiff was involved in more than one accident. Having addressed the number of accidents, the Court then turned to Progressive’s motion for summary judgment and the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. In light of the applicable UM coverage limit of $25,000 per person, the Court found that Progressive had paid the limit and satisfied its obligations under the contract of insurance for UM benefits. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
