In an opinion released on February 5, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Universal Underwriters Insurance Company. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Paradis, Docket Nos. SC 17756, 17757, slip. op. (Conn. 2008). The opinion is a favorable result for the insurance industry. Universal had commenced a declaratory judgment action requesting a determination that it was not obligated to provide coverage under the umbrella part of its Unicover Policy to one of its insured’s employees and the estate of a second employee in connection with personal injury and wrongful death actions.

As part of its analysis, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the nullification clause in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293a (a section of the Workers Compensation Act) mandated umbrella coverage in the underlying actions. The nullification clause of § 31-293a provides that any provision of an insurance policy which excludes from coverage any employee of the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with a fellow employee is null and void. The Court held that § 31-293a operates to enforce the law requiring the minimum coverage mandated by Connecticut’s Financial Responsibility Law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-112(a)) but no more. It further held that the mandatory minimum insurance requirements of the Financial Responsibility Law did not abrogate the clear and unambiguous language of Universal’s Unicover Policy, which afforded different coverage to different classes of the insured’s officers and employees. Under the garage part of the Unicover policy, $500,000 in coverage was available and more than satisfied the Financial Responsibility Law. Under the umbrella part of the policy, $10 million in coverage was available, but only for those specifically identified.