190 Conn. App. 443
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Hilario Truck Center (plaintiff) towed a 1995 Buick owned/insured by Kevin E. Kohn after an accident and claimed it was not paid for its services.
- Plaintiff sued the Kohns (breach of contract / unjust enrichment) and Allstate (count three), alleging it was a third-party beneficiary of Allstate’s automobile policy and thus entitled to payment from the insurer.
- Allstate moved to dismiss count three for lack of standing, citing a prior Superior Court decision (Hilario’s Truck Center v. Rinaldi) holding a towing company is not an intended third-party beneficiary under similar facts.
- The trial court granted the motion and expressly adopted Judge Truglia’s ruling in Rinaldi; Hilario appealed that dismissal to the Appellate Court.
- While this appeal was pending, the Appellate Court affirmed Rinaldi (183 Conn. App. 597, 193 A.3d 683), and Hilario’s brief in the present appeal failed to address or distinguish Rinaldi.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, holding Hilario had not carried its burden to show the trial court erred, and reiterating that foreseeable beneficiaries (like tow companies) are not necessarily intended third-party beneficiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hilario has standing to sue Allstate as an intended third‑party beneficiary of the auto policy | Hilario: policy language and towing circumstances make it an intended third‑party beneficiary entitled to direct recovery | Allstate: Hilario is not an intended third‑party beneficiary; at best a foreseeable beneficiary and thus lacks standing | Court: Hilario lacks standing; towing company not an intended third‑party beneficiary under these facts |
| Whether the trial court erred in adopting Rinaldi and dismissing count three | Hilario: facts/policy here differ (contends broader policy language; consensual tow vs. nonconsensual) — argued at oral argument but not briefed | Allstate: Rinaladi is controlling and dispositive; Hilario failed to distinguish it | Court: Hilario failed to brief or distinguish controlling precedent; appellate burden not met, so dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilario’s Truck Center, LLC v. Rinaldi, 183 Conn. App. 597 (Conn. App. 2018) (towing company is not an intended third‑party beneficiary of an automobile insurance policy)
- Reinke v. Sing, 186 Conn. App. 665 (Conn. App. 2018) (appellate courts presume trial court rulings correct; appellant bears burden to show error)
- Sun Val, LLC v. Commissioner of Transportation, 330 Conn. 316 (Conn. 2018) (issues not properly briefed cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)