Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Piquette
168 A.3d 623
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Amica issued an auto policy to Rebecca Bahre with $100,000 per person / $300,000 per accident limits and language covering "damages... arising out of bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one auto accident."
- Bahre’s vehicle collided with a motorcycle ridden by Bryan Piquette; Bryan suffered physical injuries and later sued (with his wife Rebecca joining a loss of consortium claim).
- Bahre (through insurer) offered to settle all claims for $100,000 (the per person limit); the Piquettes countered seeking $200,000, asserting Rebecca’s loss of consortium deserved a separate $100,000 per-person limit.
- Amica brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the loss of consortium claim is derivative of Bryan’s bodily injury claim and therefore subject to the same $100,000 per-person limit.
- The trial court granted Amica summary judgment, relying on Izzo v. Colonial Penn; Rebecca appealed claiming the policy language difference ("arising out of" v. "because of") created ambiguity requiring construing the policy for coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a spouse’s loss of consortium claim triggers a separate per-person bodily-injury limit or is covered by the injured spouse’s per-person limit | Loss of consortium is derivative of injured spouse’s bodily-injury claim and thus falls under the same $100,000 per-person limit (relying on Izzo) | The policy wording ("arising out of" vs "because of") is meaningfully different and ambiguous, so loss of consortium should get a separate per-person limit; ambiguities construed for insured | Court affirmed: loss of consortium is derivative and covered by the same per-person limit; the language difference does not create ambiguity and Izzo controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305 (1987) (held a spouse’s loss of consortium is derivative of injured spouse’s bodily-injury claim and does not trigger a separate per-person limit)
- National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santaniello, 290 Conn. 81 (2009) (rules on insurance contract interpretation and ambiguity)
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 320 Conn. 205 (2016) (summary judgment standard and suitability for coverage disputes)
- Hopson v. St. Mary’s Hosp., 176 Conn. 485 (1979) (recognition of loss of consortium as a cause of action)
- Voris v. Molinaro, 302 Conn. 791 (2011) (settlement of principal injury claim extinguishes derivative loss-of-consortium claim)