Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 320 Conn. 205

Decedent died April 24, 2010 as a passenger in a vehicle driven with his permission by a friend (Atherton); vehicle insured by Dairyland under a personal auto policy; Atherton was a covered permissive driver.
On April 12, 2012, Mitchell (as executrix) filed a wrongful-death action against Atherton seeking damages for the estate.
On June 25, 2012, Dairyland filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the policy did not provide coverage for the decedent’s claims against Atherton and that Dairyland had no duty to defend Atherton; exclusion 11 allegedly precluded coverage for bodily injury to the named insured.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Dairyland, concluding exclusion 11 unambiguously barred coverage and was valid under § 38a-335(d).
Mitchell argued exclusion 11 violated § 38a-335(d) because it was not set forth in a separate endorsement naming the excluded individual.
This Court reversed, holding exclusion 11 invalid for not being set in a separate endorsement; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must exclusions be in a separate endorsement under §38a-335(d)?	Dairyland contends the statute permits exclusions in the policy body.	Mitchell asserts §38a-335(d) requires separate endorsements naming excluded individuals.	Exclusion 11 invalid for not being in an endorsement.
Does §38a-335(d) apply to exclusions harming a named insured as a victim as opposed to a tortfeasor?	Dairyland argues no distinction; statute supports exclusions within the policy.	Mitchell argues the statute would not permit such exclusions against a named insured as a victim.	No basis for distinguishing the two scenarios; statute applicable to both, but exclusion still invalid due to endorsement requirement.

American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 454 (2007) (endorsement requirement for exclusions under § 38a-335(d))
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 290 Conn. 767 (2009) (definition and integration of endorsements into policy contracts)
Chmielewski v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646 (1991) (statutory authorization requires substantial congruence with policy provisions)
Piersa v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 519 (2005) (substance and form considerations for statutory-exception provisions)
Lowrey v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 152 (1992) (statutory requirements for printing and prominence of policy exceptions)
Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto, 317 Conn. 565 (2015) (statutory interpretation framework under 1-2z)
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc., 311 Conn. 29 (2014) (plenary review of statutory interpretation in insurance contexts)