137 Conn. App. 373
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Stott seeks additional underinsured motorist benefits from her parents’ Peerless policy after a collision involving a nonowned vehicle.
- Poppie’s vehicle provided liability coverage of $20,000 per person; Stott had $100,000 UM/UIM coverage under her own policy.
- Stott resided with her parents; their policy extended UM/UIM to resident relatives but did not list Stott’s vehicle as a covered vehicle.
- Stott collected $20,000 from Poppie’s policy and $80,000 UM/UIM from her own policy; she sought additional benefits under the parents’ policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Peerless, relying on the antistacking provision of § 38a-336(d) and policy language.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding § 38a-336(d) precludes stacking and that only the primary policy’s UM/UIM applies when the insured occupies an owned vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 38a-336(d) antistacking bars recovery under the parents’ policy | Stott asserts owned auto exclusion and Lane-like stacking should apply | § 38a-336(d) controls; only primary policy applies when occupant is in owned vehicle | Antistacking statute controls; no stacking permitted; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 125 Conn. App. 424 (Conn. App. 2010) (anti-stacking limits liability across multiple policies on same vehicle)
- Segal v. Segal, 264 Conn. 498 (Conn. 2003) (statutory construction; avoid meaningless provisions)
- Fuchs v. Allstate Ins. Co., 96 Conn. App. 284 (Conn. App. 2006) (UM/UIM coverage purpose and limits principle)
- Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sakon, 132 Conn. App. 370 (Conn. App. 2011) (addressing ownership and stacking considerations)