In Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 322 Conn. 47 (2016), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Connecticut Appellate Court in Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 151 Conn. App. 213 (2014). In Martinez, the plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was struck by a wrecker that was owned by Empire’s insured, Tony’s Long Wharf Transport, LLC. At the time of the accident, the wrecker was not a scheduled auto on the Empire policy. The plaintiff, however, claimed that liability coverage was triggered based upon the MCS-90 endorsement that was made part of the Empire policy. T
he Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention, holding that the MCS-90 Endorsement appended to the policy was not triggered because the insured’s vehicle, which was not listed on the insurance policy, was not being operated as a “for-hire” motor carrier at the time of the accident. In so holding, the Appellate Court applied the “trip-specific approach,” which the majority of courts have adhered to when determining the applicability of the MCS-90 Endorsement. On that basis, the Appellate Court ruled in favor of Halloran & Sage’s client, Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The plaintiff then petitioned the Supreme Court for certification to appeal. That petition was granted and upon further review, the Supreme Court agreed with the position adopted by Halloran & Sage and held that the MCS-90 endorsement did not apply. In so holding, the Supreme Court observed that the accident occurred at a time when Tony’s was involved in a trip specific event in Connecticut as opposed to interstate operation. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the MCS-90 endorsement should apply because the repair parts that Tony’s driver was in the process of picking up were intended to be installed in vehicles that would be used in interstate commerce. Relying upon the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Lyons v. Lancer Ins. Co., 681 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.2012), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1242, 185 L.Ed.2d 178 (2013), the Court concluded that the MCS-90 was inapplicable because the accident did not occur while Tony’s wrecker was operating in interstate commerce. This matter was handled by Daniel P. Scapellati.