Authored by: Joseph Ciollo
Superior Court – Underinsured Motorist Coverage – Exhaustion Requirement
In Latney v. Fernandez et al, the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed suit against both the alleged tortfeasor and Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica”). Amica filed a motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim for Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) benefits on the basis that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all applicable bodily injury liability bonds or policies. The alleged tortfeasor had been operating a rental vehicle, and the rental company’s insurer settled the plaintiff’s bodily injury claim for its liability insurance coverage limit of $25,000. Over two years after the subject accident, the plaintiff presented a claim to Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) which had provided liability insurance coverage to the alleged tortfeasor. Liberty Mutual denied the claim on the basis of the plaintiff’s prior release in favor of the alleged tortfeasor as well as the expired statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed Amica’s motion for summary judgment and argued there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the Liberty Mutual policy was actually “available” to the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that there was only a denial of liability from Liberty, based on the plaintiff’s signed release of the alleged tortfeasor and the statute of limitations. A critical part of the Court’s analysis included the portion of the relevant UIM statute which provides: “[a]n insured, when making a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits, shall make reasonable efforts to establish what liability coverage there is for the owner and operator of an alleged uninsured or underinsured vehicle.” Although the Court found the plaintiff’s argument about “available” coverage to be unpersuasive, the Court still found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to ascertain the applicable liability coverage of the alleged tortfeasor, specifically the Liberty Mutual policy. The Court noted that while it may be established at trial that no or insufficient reasonable efforts were made, at the summary judgment stage Amica had not met its burden of showing there were genuine issues of material fact. The motion for summary judgment was denied.
U.S. District Court – Homeowners Insurance – Motor Vehicle Liability Exclusion
In American Commerce Insurance Company v. Panus et al, the plaintiff insurer filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking an order that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its named insured or her daughter in connection with two underlying lawsuits relating to the tragic death of the daughter’s boyfriend. In the underlying lawsuits, it was alleged that the named insured provided alcohol to minors, which they consumed prior to occupying a vehicle operated by her daughter and others, including the boyfriend. The vehicle struck a telephone pole resulting in fatal injuries to the boyfriend. At all relevant times, ACIC provided a homeowner’s insurance policy to its insured. ACIC filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that the accident was excluded from coverage under the policy’s exclusion for motor vehicle liability. The defendants argued ACIC had conflated the words “injury” and “liability,” and while the injury (that is, the boyfriend’s death) certainly resulted from the use of a motor vehicle, the liability therefor did not. By the defendants’ argument, the liability for the death arose at the location where the insured allowed underage guests to drink alcohol to excess. However, the Court found that it was the Defendants who have conflated contractual liability and moral culpability, noting that ACIC policy does not cover bad acts, but rather covers injuries. The Court found that it seemed “beyond argument” that the claimed injuries related significantly to the use of a motor vehicle such that the coverage exclusion clearly should apply. Insofar as the defendants attempted to shoehorn the underlying claims into the policy’s coverage by characterizing one of the claims as alleging “social host liability,” the Court found this to be a “tortured misinterpretation” of the plain language of the policy including the motor vehicle liability exclusion. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Superior Court – Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act – Standing
In Cummings v. Alexander et al, the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries and property damage after being involved in a motor vehicle with the defendant alleged tortfeasor, whose vehicle was insured GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”). The plaintiff asserted a claim against GEICO for alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), arguing that GEICO had failed to promptly settle the property damage claim. GEICO, moved to dismiss the CUTPA claim on various grounds including that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this claim because he was not a party to the contract between the alleged tortfeasor and GEICO nor was he an intended beneficiary or assignee of that contract and thus he could not bring a valid claim under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”) which precluded him from bringing a claim for a CUTPA violation. The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to allege that he had subrogation rights under the insurance policy that would permit him to bring a CUTPA or CUIPA claim against GEICO. Moreover, there was no indication that there had been a judicial determination of the alleged tortfeasor’s liability. Thus, the Court agreed that the plaintiff had no standing to bring a CUTPA claim against GEICO. The motion to dismiss was granted.
