Recently, in Selective Insurance Company v. Oliveira, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41660 (D.Conn. May 18, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the carrier where the carrier asserted that, based upon the insured’s lack of cooperation, it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured in three underlying actions. In Oliveira, the carrier was given initial notice, pre-suit, of an accident where three workers on a job site were injured. The carrier sought to investigate but received no cooperation from its insured. In particular, the insured failed to respond to telephone calls and letters. Thus, the carrier was unable to complete its investigation of the incident. As a result, the insurer commenced a declaratory judgment action asserting it had no duty to afford any coverage with respect to the underlying suits. The District Court agreed, granting summary judgment to the carrier based upon the fact that there was no dispute that the lack of cooperation violated the policy’s cooperation condition, thus relieving Selective Insurance Company of any obligations with respect to the claim. The lesson to be gleaned from this case is that, under Connecticut law, the cooperation condition is not mere surplusage, but rather a meaningful clause that protects the insurer’s rights to fully and fairly investigate claims. Accordingly, the insured who disregards its duty to cooperate acts at its peril.