(860) 522-6103
WHO WE SERVE
PEOPLE
OUR SERVICES
CULTURE OF POSSIBILITY
LOCATIONS
NEWS
DEIA
CAREERS
MAKE A PAYMENT
SEARCH
February 4, 2016
No Coverage for Wrongful Death Under Unicover Umbrella Coverage Part

In Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. Paradis, 285 Conn. 342, 940 A.2d 730 (2008), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of insurer, Universal Underwriters, in its declaratory judgment action. In that action, Universal sought a determination that there was no coverage under the umbrella part of the Unicover insurance policy it had issued to Crowley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc (“Crowley”) with respect to Crowley’s employee, Eric Paradis.

The underlying matters involved claims of personal injury and wrongful death stemming from a motor vehicle accident which involved several of Crowley’s employees, including Christopher Lamont, Eric Paradis, and Felix De Los Rios. Paradis had been driving passengers Lamont and De Los Rios within the course of their employment with Crowley when they were involved in a single-vehicle accident resulting in the death of De Los Rios and injuries to Lamont.

When De Los Rios and Lamont brought suit for wrongful death and personal injuries against Paradis and Crowley, Universal tendered a defense under the Unicover policy’s garage operations and automobile hazard coverage part which had a $500,000 limit. After Crowley was dismissed in the De Los Rios action, Lamont withdrew against Crowley. Universal continued to defend Paradis under the same coverage part. However, it denied coverage under the policy’s umbrella coverage part, which had a $10 million limit, on the ground that Paradis was neither a “named insured” nor a “designated person” under the umbrella.

The defendants to the declaratory judgment action filed motions for summary judgment to which Universal objected. Universal also filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court, the Honorable Vanessa J. Bryant, now a federal court judge, denied the motions filed by the defendants and granted Universal’s motion because the Unicover policy “explicitly name[d] the individual insureds for each coverage part separately” and because Paradis was not listed as a “designated person” under the umbrella. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Paradis, 50 Conn. Sup. 486, 493, 940 A.2d 918 (2006) (disagreeing with the defendants that there was any ambiguity in the Unicover policy as “[t]he definition of an insured for such coverage has a definite and precise meaning concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion”).

The trial court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that the mandatory minimum insurance required by Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-112(a) (Connecticut’s Financial Responsibility Law) served to abrogate the clear and unambiguous language of the policy which afforded different coverage to different classes of Crowley’s officers and employees. See id. at 496-501. Although Section 31-293a (a section of the Workers Compensation Act) operates to enforce the law requiring the minimum coverage mandated by Section 14-112(a), it had no effect in this context. Coverage under the garage operations coverage part was more than adequate to meet the financial responsibility requirements under Section 31-293a, and the “compulsory provisions of a financial responsibility act do not apply to a voluntary policy which was not required by statute” such as the umbrella coverage part at issue. See id. at 500- 501.

After the defendants appealed, the matter was transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court. As had the trial court, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that: 1) Section 31-293a mandated umbrella coverage for Paradis because the Unicover policy must be read as a single policy rather than multiple policies and 2) the fact that the policy provides the minimum coverage required by Connecticut’s financial responsibility laws did not save it from being “null and void” under Section 31-293a. The Connecticut Supreme Court also rejected the defendants’ contention that the trial court had erred in construing the terms of the umbrella coverage part in failing to find coverage for Paradis. Paradis, 285 Conn. at 347, 940 A.2d at 732-33.