Russbach v. Yanez-Ventura, 213 Conn.App. 77

On Oct. 26, 2015 Daniel Russbach was catastrophically injured driving a vehicle owned by West Shore Motors (a small used‑car dealership). The vehicle was covered by Wesco under a commercial garage policy with $1,000,000 liability per accident.
The dealership’s owner, Jason Blake, signed a four‑page insurer waiver form that showed a $100,000 uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) box checked; the form did not list premium costs as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a‑336(a)(2).
Blake had no formal insurance training, relied on a broker, believed he was selecting the statutory minimum, and testified he did not know what conversion coverage was or how premiums compared.
The trial court found Blake credible, concluded the dealership knowingly selected $100,000 (and that the statutory disclosure failure was excused because the policy was commercial), and limited UM/UIM to $100,000. Because the decedent had received $292,540.06 in workers’ compensation, the court later granted summary judgment for Wesco as that amount offset the $100,000.
On appeal the estate’s coadministrators argued (1) Wesco’s statutory noncompliance could not be excused and the UM/UIM limits should equal the $1,000,000 liability limit, and (2) the policy provided conversion (enhanced) rather than standard UM coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insurer’s failure to satisfy § 38a‑336(a)(2) (no premium disclosure on waiver) may be excused because policy is commercial garage/fleet	Waiver invalid because statutory required disclosures were missing; reduction ineffective so UM/UIM equals liability limits ($1,000,000)	Frantz/Kinsey/McDonald allow a narrow exception for commercial fleets/garages; strict compliance not required for commercial policies like this one	Reversed. Exception does not apply here: dealership was a small, local business, sole named insured, owner lacked insurance expertise, small premium; noncompliance not excused and triable issue remains whether UM/UIM equals liability limits
Whether policy provided standard or conversion UM/UIM coverage	Plaintiffs: waiver language/checked boxes mean conversion coverage (so workers’ comp offset may not apply)	Defendant: standard coverage applies; trial court found standard	Affirmed. Policy ambiguous but extrinsic evidence (Blake’s testimony) shows he did not intend or understand conversion; waiver form language not incorporated into the policy; coverage was standard

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pasion, 219 Conn. 764 (Conn. 1991) (statute requires informed written request to reduce UM; protects unnamed or uninformed insureds)
Frantz v. United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., 245 Conn. 727 (Conn. 1998) (narrow exception: large commercial fleet entities with insurance expertise may not require signatures of all named insureds)
Kinsey v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 277 Conn. 398 (Conn. 2006) (applies Frantz to relax technical form requirements for large commercial fleets)
McDonald v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 79 Conn. App. 800 (Conn. App. 2003) (applies Frantz factors to a large commercial employer; statutory disclosure omission excused)
Harlach v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 221 Conn. 185 (Conn. 1992) (written election that clearly shows intent and initialing may be deemed effective reduction)
Fiallo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 138 Conn. App. 325 (Conn. App. 2012) (where policy is ambiguous about standard vs. conversion, resolve by examining extrinsic evidence of purchaser’s intent)
Tannone v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 329 Conn. 665 (Conn. 2018) (explains conversion UM/UIM coverage and its effect on offsets)