314 Conn. 339
Conn.2014Background
- Appellant insurer contesting arbitration involving underinsured motorist benefits under a Connecticut policy issued in 1988.
- Arbitration panel initially applied New Jersey law per Williams and Longworth line of decisions, awarding damages.
- Trial court vacated arbitration, ruling Connecticut law controlled under Restatement (Second) contract choice-of-law rules.
- Appellate Court affirmed the trial court, adopting its memorandum and holding Connecticut law governs.
- The certified issue asks whether Williams applies to contract-choice-of-law analysis after Reichhold, and whether Connecticut law governs the UIM claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs interpretation of the policy for UIM benefits? | Mortara argues New Jersey law should apply per Williams. | Mortara contends Connecticut law should apply under Restatement (Second) §§ 6, 188, 193. | Connecticut law governs the UIM claim under Restatement (Second) contract choice-of-law rules. |
| Does Williams control choice-of-law analysis for insurance-coverage questions post-Reichhold? | Williams dictates New Jersey law if it yields the same result as a tort analysis. | Reichhold requires contract-based analysis; Williams does not control here. | Williams does not control; contract-choice-of-law framework governs. |
| Is § 193 presumption in favor of Connecticut law overcome by § 6(2) factors? | Connecticut risk location and policy should apply. | New Jersey policies could override if outweighed by § 6(2) factors. | Connecticut law prevails after applying § 6(2) factors; Connecticut is most significant relationship. |
| What is the appropriate starting point for contacts under § 188(2) in this case? | Contract was formed in Connecticut; performance and subject matter largely Connecticut. | New Jersey considerations may be relevant due to tort nexus. | Connecticut has the strongest relationship under § 188(2) in this case. |
| Do exhaustion requirements differ fundamentally to override the presumption under § 193? | Exhaustion policy aligns with Connecticut approach; no override. | New Jersey exhaustion rules could yield different outcome. | Exhaustion policies reinforce Connecticut law as applicable to the contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359 (1994) (tort vs. contract analysis yield same result; not controlling after Reichhold)
- Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 243 Conn. 413 (1997) (adopted Restatement (Second) contract choice-of-law framework for insurance)
- Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375 (1997) (uninsured motorist coverage is a contractual obligation)
- American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 454 (2007) (discusses § 193 presumption and related factors)
- Quigley-Dodd v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 256 Conn. 225 (2001) (coverage vs damages distinctions in arbitration review)
- Interface Flooring Systems, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 261 Conn. 601 (2002) (discusses Restatement § 6(2) factors and certainty/predictability)