183 Conn. App. 597
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Hilario’s Truck Center (towing company) recovered, towed, and stored Rinaldi’s vehicle after a March 17, 2015 accident; it invoiced Nationwide (insurer) but was unpaid and vehicle remained in storage.
- Plaintiff sued Rinaldi (owner) and Nationwide, asserting: (1) breach of implied contract (against both), (2) unjust enrichment (against Rinaldi), and (3) breach of contract against Nationwide as a third-party beneficiary.
- Nationwide moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the towing company lacked standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary and that the policy excluded towing coverage.
- Trial court granted Nationwide’s motion to dismiss as to Nationwide; plaintiff appealed that dismissal.
- Trial court found the insurance policy did not name or refer to the towing company, did not evince intent to confer enforceable rights on it, and excluded towing unless specifically purchased.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether towing company has standing as an intended third-party beneficiary to sue insurer directly | Hilario’s is an intended third-party beneficiary because the policy covers property damage and its towing mitigated Rinaldi’s liability | Nationwide: plaintiff is not a named insured, policy contains no language showing intent to create direct obligation to towing company; towing not covered absent endorsement | No—plaintiff is not an intended third-party beneficiary and lacks standing |
| Whether policy language (liability for property damage) creates direct obligation to parties who mitigate damage | The property-damage coverage shows intent that insurer assume direct obligations to those who mitigate damage (like tow company) | Liability coverage benefits foreseeable claimants but does not create enforceable direct obligations to an open class of third parties | Court rejects plaintiff’s theory: foreseeability ≠ intended beneficiary; no direct obligation created |
| Whether public policy requires treating tow companies as third-party beneficiaries to encourage mitigation | Plaintiff: denying third-party beneficiary status discourages mitigation and is contrary to public policy | Nationwide: other remedies exist (sue owner; obtain judgment then subrogation against insurer); public policy does not mandate expanding third-party beneficiary doctrine | Court finds no overriding public policy reason to extend third-party beneficiary status |
| Whether exclusion for towing coverage was dispositive | Plaintiff: even if towing exclusion exists, insurer’s liability arises from intent to benefit third parties | Nationwide: towing coverage excluded unless purchased; policy terms control | Court notes towing excluded on facts and that exclusion supports conclusion no intended direct obligation existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206 (Conn. 2009) (members could arguably be named insureds or intended third-party beneficiaries)
- Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293 (Conn. 1998) (foreseeable beneficiary is not enough to create third-party beneficiary rights)
- Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Dev. Corp., 266 Conn. 572 (Conn. 2003) (third-party beneficiary rights require both contracting parties’ intent to create direct obligation)
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoia, 232 Conn. 223 (Conn. 1995) (third-party beneficiary may exist where contract language creates direct obligation to third party)
- Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 261 Conn. 620 (Conn. 2002) (insurer’s duties run primarily to insured; limits on duties to third parties)