132 Conn. App. 629
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Middeleer injured after falling through a fence on Misiti's premises at 1, 3, and 5 Glen Road, Sandy Hook, following a tavern visit at 1 Glen Road.
- Missiti owned the premises and the tavern leased the first floor of 1 Glen Road.
- Travelers issued a commercial general liability policy to Church Hill Tavern for the leased premises, including an additional insured endorsement naming Misiti.
- The endorsement provides coverage only with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of the part of the premises leased to the tavern and includes specific exclusions.
- The underlying complaint alleged premises liability by a business invitee; a stipulation details the sequence of events and places the fencing defect outside the tavern's leased area; trial court granted defense for Misiti, which the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travelers had a duty to defend Misiti under the additional insured endorsement. | Middeleer's injury arose out of the tavern's use of Misiti's premises. | Injury did not arise out of the tavern's use of the leased premises. | Travelers had no duty to defend Misiti. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 261 Conn. 37 (2002) (interprets 'use' and the coverage breadth for insureds)
- QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 (2001) (broad interpretation of 'arising out of' for coverage)
- Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. State, 246 Conn. 313 (1998) (duty to defend when allegations arguably fall within coverage)
- Edelman v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 53 Conn.App. 54 (1999) (premises-use interpretation; use of premises defined)