Capel v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.
141 Conn. App. 699
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Capel, as mother and next friend of Donte Capel, sues Plymouth Rock for breach of contract, bad faith, estoppel, UTSA/UITP violations, and negligent misrepresentation related to Ingala's vehicle accident injuries.
- Ingala allegedly was insured by Plymouth Rock on the date of the May 19, 2006 accident; Plymouth Rock previously denied insurance coverage during and after the accident.
- The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Ingala for approximately $3,074,384 in damages after Ingala failed to defend; damages awarded under § 14-295.
- The parties stipulate a sole advisory question for the Supreme Court: whether damages in a breach-of-defect claim against Plymouth Rock are limited to the policy limits of $300,000.
- The trial court reserved the question; this court declines to answer because the factual predicate is missing—whether Ingala was insured by Plymouth Rock is disputed.
- Policy history: policy ACT 810222300 issued Apr 7, 2006–Apr 1, 2007 with $300,000 limit; policy canceled Apr 4, 2006; payment attempt May 18, 2006; Plymouth Rock refunded May 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages limited to policy limits? | Capel argues damages may be capped at $300,000 by the policy. | Plymouth Rock contests whether a contractual bond existed and thus whether the limit applies. | Reserved question not answered; not reasonably certain to enter decision. |
| Is the reservation proper and subject to advisory opinion? | Not explicitly stated; focus on whether facts support the question's framing. | Question depends on whether insured status exists; advisory nature contested. | Court declines to entertain advisory opinion; reserved question not answered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barr v. First Taxing District, 147 Conn. 221 (1960) (trial court cannot compel advisory opinions by reservation)
- Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 211 Conn. 51 (1989) (discretion in entertaining reservations)
- Hoblitzelle v. Frechette, 156 Conn. 253 (1968) (reservations must be reasonably certain to enter decision)
- United Technologies Corp. v. Groppo, 35 Conn. App. 72 (1994) (reservation questions must have concrete impact on case)
- State v. Ross, 237 Conn. 332 (1996) (we do not render advisory opinions)
- Sadlowski v. Manchester, 206 Conn. 579 (1988) (not to render advisory opinions)
- Peterson v. Robles, 134 Conn. App. 316 (2012) (not jurisdictionally competent to issue advisory opinions)
- Duggins v. H.N.S. Management Co., 34 Conn. App. 863 (1994) (facts insufficient to answer reserved question)