CT Property and Casualty Insurance Law Newsletter- May 2026

In AmGUARD Ins. Co. v. Shawn Gibson et al, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in order to resolve a coverage dispute with its insured who was a defendant in an underlying wrongful death action filed by the decedent’s estate.  The decedent was reported missing in 2013.  In 2021, the day before the decedent’s body was found, the insured was arrested and charged with murder.  The insured ultimately pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to prison in connection with the murder charge.  In the underlying wrongful death action, the estate made allegations of negligence and claimed that the insured repeatedly struck the decedent but did not mean to kill him.  The estate alleged that the insured was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and the assault upon the decedent was due to the insured’s negligence and carelessness, resulting in death.  The estate further alleged that the decedent experienced antemortem suffering when he was left injured and unresponsive for an extended period of time prior to succumbing to his injuries, and that the insured thereafter concealed the location of the body, preventing the estate from bringing the underlying action until years later, after his body was discovered.  The insured filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that it did not owe a defense or indemnification to the insured because: (1) the insured’s conduct, as set forth in the underlying complaint, did not constitute an “occurrence” under the applicable policy; (2) the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury which was expected or intended by the insured, or arises out of physical abuse; and (3) regardless of the foregoing, the bodily injury suffered by the decedent occurred prior to the inception of the policy, and was therefore not subject to coverage.  The Court focused its evaluation on the facts alleged and not the estate’s legal theories and concluded that the underlying complaint did not allege that the decedent’s resulted from an “occurrence,” and therefore those injuries fell outside the scope of coverage under the policy.  The Court also found that even if there was coverage in the first instance, the policy’s expected or intended injury exclusion applied in light of the nature of the estate’s allegations.  The motion for summary judgment was granted.  The Court did not decide the issue of whether or not the alleged injury occurred outside of the policy period.

U.S. District Court – Duty o Defend – Summary Judgment

In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Millan et al, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action and argued that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Yheresis Millan under Jeanne Silliman’s personal automobile policy or personal umbrella liability policy for claims asserted by Jonathan Kelo in an underlying personal injury action.  The insurer asserted that Millan was not covered under either policy because he was using Silliman’s vehicle without a reasonable belief that he was entitled to do so.  Both policies contain a coverage exclusion for such circumstances.  Silliman had reported her vehicle stolen.  Millan allegedly operated the vehicle when it collided with Kelo’s vehicle.  Millan was later found guilty of stealing Silliman’s vehicle.  The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment.  The evidence in the record established that Millan stole Silliman’s motor vehicle and did not have her permission to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the subject accident.  Based on the record, even drawing all permissible inferences in Kelo’s favor, the Court found there to be only one reasonable conclusion, which was that Millan lacked a reasonable belief that he was entitled to operate Silliman’s vehicle.  The Court’s analysis applied equally to the personal automobile policy and personal umbrella liability policy.  The Court found that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify Millan under either policy and granted the motion for summary judgment.

U.S. District Court – Property Loss – Motion to Dismiss

In Los Cabos II Equity, LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the plaintiff was the owner of a mall which allegedly sustained a loss due to vandalism and theft.  After reviewing the plaintiff’s insurance claim, the insurer issued payment for what it determined to be the actual cash value of the plaintiff’s claimed damage.  The plaintiff disagreed with the insurer’s damage calculations and further alleged that the insured failed to include portions of the claim and failed to explain the basis for non-payment.  The plaintiff also demanded appraisal under the applicable insurance policy.  The insurer allegedly did not respond to the appraisal demand as required by the policy and instead stated that a portion of the property damage claim was not covered by the policy.  The plaintiff filed suit and included three counts: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and, (3) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”).  The insurer filed a motion to dismiss as to all counts.  As for the breach of contract claim, the insurer argued that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific damages to identifiably “covered property” which would have been covered by the policy, and that the lack of factual allegations identifying the damages covered by the policy and remaining unpaid made the complaint legally deficient.  Although the Court acknowledged that the plaintiff did not allege with particularity which claims for physical damage were not included in the insurer’s damages estimate and ultimate payment, the Court noted that a breach of contract claim only required the plaintiff to provide a short and plain statement of the claim, so long as the facts alleged and any reasonable inferences that could be drawn in the plaintiff’s favor gave rise to a plausible claim for relief.  Given this standard of pleading, the Court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim.  As for the good faith and fair dealing claim, while the plaintiff’s factual allegations could reasonably be construed as the insurer having misled or deceived it, the complaint was devoid of allegations sufficient to construe any alleged “dishonest purpose” for doing so.  As a result, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the good faith and fair dealing claim.  As for the CUIPA / CUTPA claim, the plaintiff’s complaint failed to include any allegations that the insurer acted similarly in any other circumstance so as to constitute a general business practice.  The complaint only alleged that based upon the insurer’s conduct with respect to the subject claim, it was reasonable to infer that the insurer has similarly denied coverage to other insureds.  The Court found this allegation to be conclusory and insufficient.  The motion to dismiss the CUIPA / CUPTA claim was granted.