Romprey v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
21 A.3d 889
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Romprey and husband filed suit against Safeco for underinsured motorist benefits after a 2004 accident involving Kempton.
- Plaintiffs sought UIM benefits under Safeco's policy; action filed February 2008, more than three years after the accident.
- Safeco moved for summary judgment asserting a three-year limitations bar under § 38a-336 (g)(1).
- Plaintiffs argued tolling under the policy’s two-prong provision and alleged breach and estoppel theories.
- Trial court held plaintiffs failed to prove the claim involved an underinsured vehicle or satisfy tolling; granted summary judgment for Safeco.
- Appellate Court affirmed, holding insufficient evidence to establish underinsured vehicle status or tolling applicability; no genuine issues on breach or estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tolling under § 38a-336 (g)(1) applied | Rompreys seek tolling via policy two-prong method and notice/exhaustion evidence. | Plaintiffs failed to show underinsured vehicle status or exhaustion; tolling not triggered. | Tolling not established; three-year limit applies. |
| Validity of the policy’s tolling provisions in light of exhaustion | Policy tolling invalid if it requires ‘commence arbitration’ rather than ‘demand arbitration’ within 180 days. | Threshold facts lacking; tolling not implicated without proof of underinsured status. | Policy tolling provisions not reached; no basis to strike them. |
| Breach of contract by failing to respond to arbitration demand and to provide the policy | Safeco breached by ignoring arbitration demand and denying access to the policy. | Plaintiffs offered only unauthenticated materials; no sworn evidence of breach. | No genuine issue of material fact; no breach proven. |
| Estoppel from enforcing the limitations provision | Safeco's conduct led plaintiffs to believe the limitation would not be enforced. | No duty to speak; silence insufficient to estop without reliance and injury. | Estoppel not established; no actionable reliance or injury shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorchinsky v. Windsor Ins. Co., 90 Conn.App. 557 (Conn. App. 2005) (tolling analysis; notice and exhaustion prerequisites)
- Serrano v. Aetna Ins. Co., 233 Conn. 437 (1995) (exhaustion of tortfeasor policy necessary for UIM benefits)
- Barlow v. Palmer, 96 Conn.App. 88 (Conn. App. 2006) (summary judgment evidence must be authenticated)
- Boyce v. Allstate Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 375 (1996) (estoppel in insurance context; reliance requirements)
- Tracy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 76 Conn.App. 329 (2003) ( tolling and policy interpretation; affirmed)