New London County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zachem
145 Conn. App. 160
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff insured defendants' real property, including dwelling and unattached garage, under a policy with vandalism and ensuing loss provisions.
- Vandalism exception excludes losses caused by vandalism if the dwelling has been vacant for more than thirty consecutive days.
- Ensuing loss provision provides that any ensuing loss not excluded is covered, with no definitions for vacancy or ensuing loss.
- Sept. 11, 2008 loss: copper pipes were stolen, propane gas line broken, gas exploded, destroying the house.
- No one resided at the house since July 2007; the house was uninhabitable at the time of the loss; fire marshal testified no recent occupancy.
- Trial court found the dwelling vacant for more than thirty days and that the ensuing loss provision did not apply; judgment declared no coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vacancy interpretation is ambiguous and correctly applied | Zachem and Knutson contend vacancy is ambiguous; court misread intent. | Zachem and Knutson argue broader meaning of vacant could include partial occupancy. | Vacant defined as unoccupied and devoid of habitation; reading adopted and not ambiguous. |
| Whether ensuing loss provision applies to wrap a covered loss under policy | Ensuing loss not applicable because loss was caused by excluded vandalism. | Ensuing loss could cover non-excluded losses if arising after an initial covered peril. | Sansone proximate-cause approach applied; ensuing loss not triggered; no coverage under ensuing loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sansone v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 47 Conn. Supp. 35 (Conn. Sup. 1999) (proximate cause analysis for determining ensuing loss coverage)
- Sansone v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 62 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2001) (affirmation of proximate cause framework)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc., 309 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2013) (contract interpretation favors insured when ambiguity exists)
- R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 273 Conn. 448 (Conn. 2005) (interpretation of vacancy/ambiguous terms in contracts)
- Bishop’s Comer Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Service Merchandise Co., 247 Conn. 192 (Conn. 1998) (commercial property vacancy considerations informing 'vacant' meaning)
- National Grange Mutual Ins. Co. v. Santaniello, 290 Conn. 81 (Conn. 2009) (standards for appellate review of coverage determinations)