Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn. App. 390

Bristol Heights Associates, LLC appeals a judgment in favor of Chicago Title Insurance Company on a declaratory action about title insurance coverage for property in Bristol, Connecticut.
The policy’s terms, including sections 4, 5, 9(c), and 13, governed the parties’ rights and duties in the underlying tax lien dispute.
The city of Bristol imposed 1993 tax liens on the subdivided lots (PB Real Estate) but Volpicella, the individual seller, paid the taxes, and the defendant acquired title without notice of those liens.
The plaintiff investigated the lien claim through its claims office; the defendant initially refused to cooperate with examinations under oath and production of records.
The trial court found the defendant breached the policy by not cooperating, paid the taxes resulting in prejudice to the plaintiff, and that subrogation rights did not restore coverage; bad faith and CUTPA claims were resolved in favor of the plaintiff.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the cooperation and prejudice findings, voluntary payment under 9(c), subrogation-relief conclusions, and exclusion of evidence of bad faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a breach of the cooperation/duties under section 5?	Section 5 authorized examinations and documentation; defendant's refusals prejudiced investigation.	Requests exceeded section 5 scope; cooperation was not required for non-proof-of-loss issues.	Yes, defendant breached section 5 and prejudiced plaintiff.
Did voluntary payment under protest violate section 9(c)?	Payment breached 9(c) and terminated plaintiff’s obligations.	Payment was voluntary and not a settlement; subrogation rights preserved.	Courts avoided addressing merits of this claim because section 5 breach suffices.
Did the plaintiff lose coverage obligation due to unimpaired subrogation rights (section 13)?	Subrogation rights, when unimpaired, do not restore defendant’s coverage.	Evidence of Volpicella’s assets could show recovery via subrogation.	Court properly considered but found no merit to defendant’s challenge to section 13.
Was the court correct to preclude bad-faith evidence given prior rulings?	Evidence of bad faith was legally irrelevant after summary judgment on bad-faith claims.	Should consider post-summary judgment bad-faith evidence.	Yes, court properly precluded such evidence.

Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Fontaine, 278 Conn. 779 (2006) (policy interpretation with insured-favorable construction; four corners approach)
Christoni v. Christoni, 156 Conn. 628 (1968) (contract interpretation; estoppel/waiver context for coverage decisions)
De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424 (2004) (review of factual findings; substantial evidence standard)
Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 116 Conn. App. 417 (2009) (cooperation in insurance contracts; materiality/prejudice standard)
Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer, 282 Conn. 209 (2007) (breach of contract; ordinary standard of review for factual findings)
Silicon Valley Bank v. Miracle Faith World Outreach, Inc., 140 Conn. App. 827 (2013) (evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion standard)