Warzecha v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co.
206 Conn. App. 188
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Keith Warzecha (insured) was sued by Cindy Watson alleging surveillance, stalking, harassment, and three tort counts: invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- Warzecha’s homeowners policy with USAA provided liability coverage for claims ‘‘because of bodily injury’’ and defined bodily injury as ‘‘physical injury, sickness or disease,’’ expressly excluding purely mental injuries unless they arise out of physical injury.
- After USAA denied coverage, Warzecha sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief, seeking a defense and indemnity; the trial court granted USAA’s motion for summary judgment.
- Watson’s NIED count alleged she suffered emotional distress "so severe that it could cause physical illness," but did not allege any actual physical illness or injury.
- Warzecha conceded his policy excluded intentional acts (so counts one and two were not covered) and argued the NIED allegation was sufficient to trigger coverage and that public policy should favor finding coverage for mental injuries.
- The trial court (and the appellate court) held the NIED pleading did not allege an actual bodily injury and the policy’s plain-language exclusion for purely mental injuries controlled; summary judgment for USAA was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watson’s allegation that emotional distress "could cause physical illness" alleges a "bodily injury" under the policy and thus triggers duty to defend/indemnify | That the allegation is sufficient to show a bodily injury was alleged and thus coverage/duty to defend exists | The complaint alleges only mental injury; policy covers only bodily (physical) injury and excludes purely mental injuries | Court: The phrase was a pleading requirement for NIED and does not allege actual physical injury; no coverage, no duty to defend or indemnify |
| Whether public policy requires construing the policy to cover purely mental injuries despite its exclusion | Public policy favors coverage for severe emotional harms, so the exclusion should not be applied to bar coverage | The policy’s plain language excludes purely mental injuries; courts must enforce unambiguous contract terms | Court: Bound by the policy’s clear language; declined to rewrite policy for public policy reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764 (2018) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts for nonmoving party)
- R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 333 Conn. 343 (2019) (insurance policy interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- DaCruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 268 Conn. 675 (2004) (insurer’s duty to defend is determined by allegations of the underlying complaint)
- Moore v. Continental Casualty Co., 252 Conn. 405 (2000) (if an allegation possibly falls within coverage, insurer must defend)
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (2010) (NIED requires emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm)
- Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 335 Conn. 62 (2019) (courts must apply plain language of insurance policies even when policy interests might suggest otherwise)
- New London County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Zachem, 145 Conn. App. 160 (2013) (rules for interpreting insurance contracts)