Arrowood Indem. Co. v. King
304 Conn. 179
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Arrowood Indemnity seeks declaration of no duty to defend/indemnify the Kings for a 2002 ATV accident.
- Kings owned the residence in Deer Park (Greenwich, CT) covered by a homeowners policy; ATV owned by Kings.
- Accident occurred on a private dead-end road within the Deer Park development, not on public road.
- Policy excludes motor vehicle use but contains an ATV recreational-use exception for ATVs on an insured location.
- Second Circuit certified three state-law questions on location, premises, and notice timing after reviewing record.
- District Court granted summary judgment for insurers; Connecticut Supreme Court addresses interpretation and notice prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What location triggers coverage for negligent entrustment? | Location at time of entrustment governs coverage. | Location garaged/on insured location governs coverage. | Coverage depends on accident site (time of accident). |
| Is the dead-end private road an insured location under the policy? | Private roads may qualify if used in connection with residence. | Road not sufficiently tied to residence under deed/easement to be insured location. | Road not an insured location; exclusion applies. |
| Does social interaction delaying notice justify late notice defense? | Social interactions could indicate no liability; delay could be reasonable. | Delay justified by lack of litigation expectation from social contacts. | No, social interactions do not justify delay; notice must be timely. |
| Who bears the burden to show prejudice from untimely notice? | Insurer should prove prejudice after insured proves lack of timely notice. | Insured bears burden to show lack of prejudice. | Insurer bears burden to prove prejudice; Murphy overruled to that extent. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaBonte v. Federal Mutual Ins. Co., 159 Conn. 252 (Conn. 1970) (locates liability by accident site; off-premises limitation)
- Johnson v. Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn., 302 Conn. 639 (Conn. 2011) (policy ambiguities resolved in insured's favor)
- Plasticrete Corp. v. American Policyholders Ins. Co., 184 Conn. 231 (Conn. 1981) (as soon as practicable standard for notice)
- Murphy v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 206 Conn. 409 (Conn. 1988) (burden-shifting prejudice framework for notice)
- Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Murphy, 206 Conn. 409 (Conn. 1988) (notice prejudice balancing framework)
- LaBonte; see also Royal Indemnity Co. v. King, 512 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Conn. 2007) (federal declaratory action on location; related to insured location concept)