329 Conn. 249
Conn.2018Background
- Kingstone Insurance (NY-domiciled) issued a nationwide business automobile liability policy to insured Geraldo Cardozo; policy was written and the vehicle garaged in New York.
- Policy obligated Kingstone to defend and indemnify its insured for covered accidents anywhere in the United States.
- While the policy was in effect, Cardozo caused a collision in Stamford, Connecticut, injuring Jerzy and Sylvia Samelko; default judgments were entered against Cardozo in Connecticut state court.
- Kingstone received notice of the Connecticut action but refused to defend or indemnify Cardozo, and the Samelkos (as subrogees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-321) sued Kingstone in Connecticut for breach of contract and related claims.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding Connecticut’s corporate long-arm statute and due process permit jurisdiction based on Kingstone’s contractual promise to defend and indemnify nationwide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 33-929(f)(1) (corporate long-arm) reaches an out-of-state insurer that agreed to defend/indemnify nationwide for an accident in Connecticut | Samelko: The policy expressly contemplates performance in Connecticut because coverage territory includes the U.S., so the contract was "to be performed" in Connecticut | Kingstone: The policy was formed, issued, and the vehicle/insured are New York-based; no performance occurred in Connecticut so § 33-929(f)(1) does not apply | Held: "To be performed" means contemplated performance; the insurer’s promise to defend/indemnify nationwide contemplates performance in Connecticut and satisfies § 33-929(f)(1) |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause (minimum contacts / reasonableness) | Samelko: By drafting a nationwide policy and promising to defend in Connecticut, Kingstone purposefully availed itself of litigation risk there; jurisdiction is foreseeable and reasonable | Kingstone: Lacks sufficient contacts with Connecticut (not domiciled, not licensed then, policy issued and vehicle garaged in NY); minimum contacts absent | Held: Minimum contacts met (contractual promise is a significant, purposeful connection); reasonableness factors favor Connecticut (forum interest, efficiency, modest burden on defendant) |
| Whether an insurer’s contractual duty to defend/indemnify is more than incidental performance in the forum | Samelko: Defense and indemnity are central insurer obligations and require forum activities (litigation, depositions, counsel) | Kingstone: Performance is contingent and occurs elsewhere; analogous uninsured-motorist cases show no contemplated forum performance | Held: Defense and indemnity are primary contract purposes and foresee litigation activity in the forum; uninsured/underinsured coverage is distinguishable |
| Whether prior precedent (e.g., Cogswell) bars jurisdiction here | Samelko: Cogswell is distinguishable (involved subpoena enforcement and minimal contacts) | Kingstone: Cogswell supports lack of jurisdiction where contacts are only letters/calls and no insured collision in forum | Held: Cogswell is inapplicable; cases holding jurisdiction over nationwide insurers in liability disputes are persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombard Bros., Inc. v. General Asset Management Co., 190 Conn. 245 (Conn. 1983) (totality of contractual contacts governs contemplated performance analysis)
- Rossman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1987) (insurer’s nationwide defense/indemnity promise makes being haled into foreign forums foreseeable)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1990) (insurer controls territorial scope of its defense/indemnity obligations; litigation foreseeable)
- TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace Eur. Grp. Ltd., 488 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2007) (contractual allocation of risk can create forum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction)
- McGow v. McCurry, 412 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2005) (forum contacts sufficient where insurer’s policy contemplates out-of-state claims)
- Ferrell v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 393 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2005) (similar holding regarding insurer’s foreseeability of litigation in covered jurisdictions)
- Payne v. Motorists’ Mut. Ins. Cos., 4 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 1993) (insurer’s nationwide obligations support personal jurisdiction)
- Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505 (Conn. 2007) (distinguished: involved minimal contacts for subpoena enforcement)
- Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (constitutional minimum contacts framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors for jurisdiction)