National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Beaulieu Co.
59 A.3d 393
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Beaulieu Company, LLC, a roofing contractor, was insured by National Fire Insurance Company for two policy terms (Mar 26, 2005–Mar 26, 2006; Apr 3, 2006–Jun 26, 2006).
- Plaintiff sued for unpaid premiums, disputing $46,529 in premiums for workers associated with roofing work by specific workers (Curt Squires, David Slota, Mark Lepine, M. J. Poirier, SkyTech, LLC, and Rome).
- Policy part five C required premium recalculation for employees and other persons who could trigger liability for benefits unless evidence showed coverage was provided otherwise.
- Defendant produced certificates of insurance for the workers, but the certificates were silent about who was covered; audit concluded the workers lacked independent coverage during policy terms.
- The trial court held the workers could fall within part five C 2 because their work could cause the insurer to be liable for benefits, even if they were independent contractors, and awarded damages of $46,513.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, clarifying the court did not rely solely on employee status and accepted that workers engaged in work exposing the plaintiff to potential liability under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Squires, Slota, and Lepine employees or independent contractors? | They fit within part five C 2 as workers who could trigger liability. | There was insufficient evidence they were employees; they were independent contractors. | Court held they could be within coverage under part five C 2. |
| Did the workers’ activities expose the plaintiff to liability under part five C 2 even if they were not employees? | Work by these individuals could make CNA liable for benefits; thus premiums were owed. | Without evidence of workers’ employee status or act coverage, no exposure. | Court found exposure under part five C 2; premiums could be due. |
| Were the workers independently insured, exempting Beaulieu from inclusion in the audit? | Certificates showed coverage for workers; defendant should be exempt. | Certificates were silent on covered individuals; audit could rely on manager testimony. | Court affirmed that lack of clear proof of independent coverage meant inclusion in audit. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Grange Mutual Ins. Co. v. Santaniello, 290 Conn. 81 (2009) (credibility and sufficiency standards for appellate review of factual findings)
- Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641 (2000) (interpretation of workers' compensation coverage and right to control)
- Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., 264 Conn. 509 (2003) (three requirements for principal employer liability under §31-291)
- Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc., 126 Conn. App. 717 (2011) (test for employee status focuses on right to control)
- Samaoya v. Gallagher, 102 Conn. App. 670 (2007) (interpretation of control in §31-291 context)