52 Conn. Supp. 522
Conn. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Mortara, a Connecticut resident, was injured in a July 31, 1988 car collision in Ocean City, New Jersey; Ednie was at fault with a Pennsylvania State Farm policy.
- Ednie’s policy settled for $95,000; Mortara’s mother’s vehicle was insured in Connecticut by Pennsylvania General Insurance (a General Accident subsidiary) with underinsured motorist coverage.
- Mortara’s policy, issued in Connecticut, provided UIM up to $300,000; Mortara sought UIM benefits from the plaintiff insurer.
- An arbitration panel considered (i) which state's law applies to the policy interpretation, (ii) whether Mortara complied with Longworth, and (iii) the amount of damages; panel held New Jersey law applies and Longworth complied, awarding $275,000 (adjusted to $160,125.54).
- The plaintiff moved to vacate the award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(4); the defendant moved to confirm; the court reserved ruling and later vacated the award and denied confirmation.
- The court held the arbitration was subject to de novo review as a coverage issue, determined Connecticut law governs the UIM dispute, and precluded recovery under Connecticut law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state's law governs UIM interpretation? | Connecticut law applies (principal risk location in CT; policy issued in CT). | New Jersey law applies per panel ruling. | Connecticut law governs. |
| Is Williams applicable to this choice of law? | Williams may control due to similar facts. | Williams inapplicable because the issue is a contract-based exhaustion requirement, not tort damages. | Williams is inapplicable; panel erred in applying it. |
| Should the UIM claim be governed by contract choice of law or tort choice of law principles, and what is the effect on exhaustion? | Treat as CT contract issue; exhaustion from tortfeasor’s policy is required under CT law. | Treat as NJ approach; different exhaustion mechanics. | Contract-based choice of law; CT § 38a-336 exhaustion applies; CT law governs and precludes coverage here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359 (1994) (choice of law can be a damages or coverage issue; CT law not controlling here)
- Quigley-Dodd v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 256 Conn. 225 (2001) (framework for when choice-of-law is a coverage issue and subject to de novo review)
- American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 454 (2007) ( Restatement-based analysis for insurance contract choice of law; §193 presumption for principal location of risk)
- Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 243 Conn. 401 (1997) (abandoned lex loci contractus; adopt Restatement (Second) most significant relationship approach for contracts)
- Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375 (1997) (underinsured motorist coverage treated as contract, with tort-damages aspects)
- Enviro Express, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 194 (2006) (UIM benefits are sui generis; balance contract and tort principles)
- Longworth v. Van Houten, 223 N.J. Super. 174 (1988) (Longworth procedure for pursuing UIM after under-settlement)
- Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co. v. Vassas, 139 N.J. 163 (1995) (adopts Longworth approach in New Jersey)
- Zirger v. General Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327 (1996) (NJ Supreme Court on the policy interest in UIM)