New London County Mutual Insurance v. Bialobrodec
137 Conn. App. 474
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Declaratory judgment action by New London County Mutual Insurance Co. against the decedent’s estate administrator and others regarding coverage under a homeowner’s policy.
- Policy exclusions at issue: (i) motor vehicle exclusion and (ii) negligent entrustment exclusion, both allegedly excluding coverage for the defendant’s negligent supervision claim.
- Underlying facts: Adrian Bialobrodec, insured under the policy, allegedly allowed the decedent to operate a motorcycle; the decedent died in a motorcycle accident seeking damages from the parents’ supervision.
- Defendant’s claim: negligent supervision of Adrian caused the decedent’s death; defendant argues exclusions do not apply to a stand-alone supervision claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, holding the exclusions barred coverage for the negligent supervision claim; on appeal, defendant challenges the motor vehicle exclusion as to the supervision theory.
- The appellate court affirms, concluding the motor vehicle exclusion applies to the negligent supervision claim as it arose from the decedent’s use of a motor vehicle owned by an insured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the motor vehicle exclusion bar coverage for negligent supervision claim? | New London argues injury arising out of decedent’s use of a motor vehicle is excluded. | Dzikiewicz contends negligence claim is about supervision, not vehicle use. | Yes, exclusion applies; coverage barred. |
| Does the negligent entrustment exclusion also apply, making further analysis unnecessary? | Entrustment exclusion would cover negligent supervision tied to vehicle use. | Recognition of entrustment exclusion is necessary if motor vehicle exclusion does not suffice. | Not addressed because motor vehicle exclusion suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lancia v. State National Ins. Co., 134 Conn. App. 682 (Conn. App. 2012) (standard for review of summary judgment, duty to defend; broad exclusion construction)
- New London County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nantes, 303 Conn. 737 (Conn. 2012) (use of automobile broad; exclusion terms interpreted ordinarily)
- Hogle v. Hogle, 167 Conn. 572 (Conn. 1975) (definition of use of a motor vehicle for coverage purposes)