CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Jason Yerushalmi

CSAA v. Yerushalmi · United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · March 20, 2026 · No. 24-CV-1455 (SFR)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss Jason Yerushalmi’s counterclaim. The court held that criminal-act exclusions in the homeowner’s and umbrella insurance policies barred coverage and relieved CSAA of any duty to defend or indemnify Yerushalmi in the underlying Montanaro litigation. The court also dismissed the remaining counterclaims premised on CSAA’s alleged obligation to provide coverage.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Decision date
March 20, 2026
Docket number
24-CV-1455 (SFR)
Disposition
other

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the criminal-act exclusions in the homeowner's policy and umbrella policy barred coverage for the conduct alleged in the underlying Montanaro lawsuit.
  2. Whether CSAA owed Yerushalmi a duty to defend or indemnify him under either policy.
  3. Whether Yerushalmi's counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common-law bad faith, and statutory bad faith could proceed after the court determined that CSAA owed no defense or indemnity.
  4. Whether CSAA was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of the relevant counterclaim.

Holdings

  1. The criminal-act exclusion unambiguously applied to the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint because the allegations described conduct for which Yerushalmi could have been convicted under Connecticut criminal law, even though he was not charged with or convicted of a crime.
  2. CSAA had no obligation under the homeowner's policy to defend or indemnify Yerushalmi in the Montanaro lawsuit.
  3. CSAA had no obligation under the umbrella policy to defend or indemnify Yerushalmi in the Montanaro lawsuit.
  4. The counterclaims premised on CSAA's alleged obligation to provide a defense or indemnification were not viable because CSAA had no such contractual obligation.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…