138 Conn. App. 325
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mario Fiallo sued Allstate for underinsured motorist benefits after being injured by a tortfeasor with $20,000 policy limits.
- Jury awarded $95,000 ($30,287.14 economic, $64,712.86 noneconomic).
- Parties reserved issues relating to reductions in UIM coverage for postverdict determination; insurer moved to reduce verdict to $0 per policy terms.
- Plaintiff sought to amend complaint postverdict to add bad faith, CUIPA, and CUTPA claims; court denied.
- Court later reduced the judgment to $24,596.29 after postverdict rulings; remand and ambiguity issues occurred.
- Court held there is ambiguity in whether standard UIM or conversion coverage was purchased, requiring remand for factual determination of intended coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postverdict amendment to add bad faith should be permitted | Fiallo argues amendment allowed by Powell after verdict to avoid res judicata | Allstate contends amendment would be improper and prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; amendment denied |
| Whether the policy language is ambiguous regarding which UIM coverage applies | Declarations page failed to designate SS/SC, creating ambiguity in coverage | Declarations page language unambiguous; coverage clearly labeled in Part V/VI | Ambiguity found; remand to determine which coverage was purchased; extrinsic evidence may be admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594 (2007) (res judicata; bad faith and related claims must be brought together if known)
- Landry v. Spitz, 102 Conn. App. 34 (2007) (distinction where bad faith was litigated versus not; relevance to amendment timing)
- Duhaime v. American Reserve Life Ins. Co., 200 Conn. 360 (1986) (res judicata principles; insurer's refusal to pay under policy)
- Leone v. Knighton, 196 Conn. 494 (1985) (denial of postverdict amendment transforming action not abused)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 255 Conn. 295 (2001) (ambiguity assessment and extrinsic evidence considerations)
- Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Fontaine, 278 Conn. 779 (2006) (ambiguity assessment and use of extrinsic evidence; contra proferentem considerations)
- Ceci v. National Indemnity Co., 225 Conn. 165 (1993) (extrinsic evidence and insured's reasonable expectations in contract enforcement)