Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut answered three certified questions concerning homeowners insurance coverage for injuries arising from an all-terrain vehicle accident. The court held that the relevant insured location is the site of the accident, that the private dead-end road was not an insured location under the policy, and that post-accident social interactions did not justify delayed notice. The court also held that an insurer bears the burden of proving prejudice from untimely notice.
Holdings
- The phrase "on an insured location" refers to the location of the ATV at the time of the accident giving rise to the insurance claim, not its location when entrusted or where it was regularly garaged.
- The dead-end private road where the ATV accident occurred was not an insured location under the policy and therefore the accident was not covered.
- Social interactions between the Kings and the injured child's family that did not reference a potential claim did not justify delaying notice because the severity and circumstances of the accident would have led a reasonable person to believe that liability may have been incurred.
- When an insurer relies on untimely notice to disclaim coverage, the insurer bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it was prejudiced by the delay.
Questions Presented
- Whether the phrase "on an insured location" in the homeowners policy refers to the location of the ATV at the time of entrustment, the location where it was garaged, or the location of the accident.
- Whether the dead-end private road where the accident occurred constituted premises used in connection with the residence premises and therefore an insured location.
- Whether social interactions between the insureds and the injured claimant's family, without reference to a claim, justified delaying notice of the potential claim.
- Which party bears the burden of proving prejudice resulting from untimely notice under Connecticut law.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (15)
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. King, 512 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Conn. 2007)(followed as procedural background)
- Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 605 F.3d 62, 72-80 (2d Cir. 2010)(followed as certification source)
- Enviro Express, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 194, 199, 901 A.2d 666 (2006)(followed)
- Johnson v. Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn., 302 Conn. 639, 643, 31 A.3d 1004 (2011)(followed)
- LaBonte v. Federal Mutual Ins. Co., 159 Conn. 252, 257, 268 A.2d 663 (1970)(followed by analogy)
- Iorio v. Simone, 340 N.J. Super. 19, 23, 773 A.2d 722 (2001)(persuasive analogy)
- Bankert v. Threshermen's Mutual Ins. Co., 110 Wis. 2d 469, 480, 329 N.W.2d 150 (1983)(persuasive analogy)
- Greeley v. Cunningham, 116 Conn. 515, 520, 165 A. 678 (1933)(followed)
- Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 408 Pa. Super. 511, 513-14, 597 A.2d 149 (1991)(distinguished)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Murphy, 206 Conn. 409, 417-20, 538 A.2d 219 (1988)(overruled)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…