202 Conn.App. 616
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- On May 18, 2017 McCall (plaintiff) was injured when his motorcycle collided with a 2014 Subaru owned by Reynolds and driven by Sopneski while making a left turn.
- Reynolds had provided the Subaru to Sopneski as a temporary substitute while her car was being repaired; Sopneski showed Reynolds proof of her auto insurance and signed a written agreement titled "Subaru Rental Agreement." The agreement’s "Rental Rates and Charges" section was blank and Sopneski paid nothing for use.
- McCall sued Sopneski for negligence and Reynolds for vicarious liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-154a (count two based on an alleged rental agreement).
- Reynolds moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-60 (dealer/repairer immunity when a vehicle or dealer plate is loaned to an insured person); the trial court granted summary judgment for Reynolds on count two.
- On appeal the plaintiff argued a factual dispute existed whether the vehicle was "loaned" (triggering § 14-60) or "rented" (triggering § 14-154a), and that § 14-60 should apply only when a dealer plate was lent.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: § 14-60’s plain text covers loaning a motor vehicle (with or without a dealer plate), and the undisputed facts show a temporary, no-fee loan, satisfying § 14-60 prerequisites (including proof of insurance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 14-60 immunity requires a dealer plate on the vehicle | § 14-60 (captioned re: dealer plates) applies only when a dealer plate is lent; no dealer plate here so no immunity | § 14-60 applies when a dealer loans a motor vehicle or a number plate or both; plain text covers loaning the vehicle even without a dealer plate | Court held § 14-60 covers lending a dealer vehicle without a dealer plate; caption not dispositive and statute’s text controls |
| Whether the transaction was a "loan" (§ 14-60) or a "rental" (§ 14-154a) | Agreement titled "rental" and uses "rent" repeatedly, creating a factual dispute whether it was a rental subjecting Reynolds to vicarious liability | Undisputed: vehicle was a temporary substitute while repair occurred, plaintiff paid nothing, section for rental rates blank—functionally a loan | Court held transaction was a loan for temporary use with no fee; no genuine issue of material fact and § 14-60 applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc., 199 Conn. 245 (1986) (interpreting § 14-60 to bar dealer liability where dealer lent plate/vehicle after confirming purchaser had insurance)
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 310 Conn. 304 (2013) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Rutter v. Janis, 180 Conn. App. 1 (2018) (discusses § 14-60’s legislative purpose to protect dealers who comply with insurance verification)
- Barnard v. Barnard, 214 Conn. 99 (1990) (contract construed as a whole; labels do not control substance)
- Rodriguez v. Testa, 296 Conn. 1 (2010) (discusses Graves Amendment preemption issue though not decided here)