125 Conn. App. 424
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Plaintiff William J. Lane was injured in a September 12, 2006 motor vehicle accident while driving his truck on I-84, with damages exceeding $200,000.
- During the accident, Lane was simultaneously insured for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under two separate policies on the same vehicle: Metropolitan Policy (Mar 20–Sept 20, 2006) and Horace Mann Policy (Aug 21, 2006–Feb 21, 2007), each with a $100,000 UM limit.
- Lane paid separate premiums for both policies and did not terminate Metropolitan upon obtaining Horace Mann, resulting in a 30-day period of dual coverage for the same vehicle.
- Both policies contained “other insurance” clauses limiting recovery to the highest single policy limit, raising a question about stacking two UM policies on the same vehicle.
- The trial court reserved the legal question for the Appellate Court; the court ultimately held that § 38a-336(d) does not bar recovery of both policy limits where two separate primary UM policies cover the same vehicle and damages exceed the combined limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two separate UM policies on the same vehicle may both be collected. | Lane argues stacking is allowed and Pecker invalidates restraints on stacking. | Defendants contend § 38a-336(d) bars combining limits from multiple policies on the same vehicle. | No; two separate policies may be collected if damages equal or exceed combined limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443 (1976) (invalidates other-insurance clauses; regulators permit only statutory reductions)
- Lash v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 236 Conn. 318 (1996) (singular/plural usage in § 38a-336(d) addressed; statutory interpretation guidance)
- Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30 (1991) (singular vs. plural in § 38a-336(d); plural liability provisions; interpretation of stacking)
- Orkney v. Hanover Ins. Co., 248 Conn. 195 (1999) (insurer may not reduce UM/UIM liability except as authorized by regulations)
- Nichols v. Salem Subway Restaurant, 98 Conn. App. 837 (2006) (insurer may not contract to reduce UM/UIM liability beyond regulatory authorization)
- Jacaruso v. Lebski, 118 Conn. App. 216 (2009) (policy language limiting offsets must align with regulatory exceptions)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, 201 Conn. 478 (1986) (insurer may not reduce UM/UIM liability except as authorized by regulation)
- Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 245 Conn. 169 (1998) (statutory/regulatory constraints on offsetting UM/UIM benefits)