Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, No. 18276.
Decision Date | 18 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 18276. |
Citation | 994 A.2d 174,296 Conn. 253 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANYv.Stephen PALUMBO et al. |
Neil Johnson, Hartford, for the appellant (named defendant).
Jeremiah J. O'Connor, for the appellee (plaintiff).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.
The issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that the plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company, could hold the named defendant, Stephen Palumbo (defendant),1 liable under the doctrine of equitable subrogation to recover damages the plaintiff had paid under a homeowner's insurance policy issued to its insured, the defendant's fiancée, with whom he lived. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 109 Conn.App. 731, 952 A.2d 1235 (2008). The defendant contends that, in light of the particular facts of the relationship between himself and the plaintiff's insured: (1) he was a tenant of the insured and thus was not subject to equitable subrogation by the plaintiff; and (2) the public policy against economic waste, as well the expectations of the defendant and the plaintiff's insured, prohibit an action for equitable subrogation. We conclude that the equities clearly weigh against allowing the plaintiff to recover from the defendant under this doctrine and, therefore, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.
The record reveals the following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history. On January 31, 2002, a fire occurred at the single-family home owned by the plaintiff's insured, Lisa Deveau, the defendant's fiancée, a residence that she shared with her daughter and the defendant. The cause of the fire was a water heater that the defendant had installed improperly. After the fire, Deveau filed a claim under her homeowner's policy with the plaintiff, on which she was the sole named insured. The plaintiff ultimately paid Deveau $62,615.25 to cover damages and expenses she had incurred as a result of the fire.
In January, 2004, the plaintiff commenced an action for equitable subrogation against the defendant, alleging that his negligence had caused the fire and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from him the sum that it had paid to Deveau under her homeowner's policy. In his amended answer, the defendant conceded that he negligently had installed the water heater that caused the fire, but asserted the following special defenses to preclude the action against him: (1) that he was an insured under the policy; (2) that he and Deveau were in a landlord-tenant relationship; (3) that he was a lodger; and (4) that subrogation was not equitable. In light of the defendant's concession of negligence, the trial to the court was limited to the special defenses and issues relating to damages.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.2 The trial court concluded that the defendant's status as the fiance' of Deveau, the named insured, did not fall within the definition of covered persons under the policy.3 In rejecting the remaining special defenses, the trial court reasoned: In light of its conclusion that the status of the defendant was dispositive, the trial court did not address the defendant's claim that it was inequitable, under the particular facts of this case, to allow a subrogation claim.
The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court, which rejected the defendant's contention that he was not subject to equitable subrogation and affirmed the judgment. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, supra, 109 Conn.App. at 733, 952 A.2d 1235. In so doing, the court relied on DiLullo v. Joseph, 259 Conn. 847, 792 A.2d 819 (2002), and Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. at 527, 849 A.2d 777, as setting forth the controlling principles. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, supra, at 737, 952 A.2d 1235. The Appellate Court noted that, in DiLullo, this court had held that, in the absence of an express agreement, there was no right of equitable subrogation against a tenant by a landlord's fire insurer. Id. By contrast, the Appellate Court noted that, in Wasko, this court had held that there was a right of equitable subrogation against a social guest by the homeowner's fire insurer. Id. In concluding that DiLullo did not control in the present case, the Appellate Court cited to definitions in the General Statutes applicable to landlord-tenant law, specifically, those for the terms “landlord,” “tenant,” “rental agreement” and “rent.” Id., at 738, 952 A.2d 1235 ( ).4 In light of those definitions, the defendant's failure to pay a security deposit, and the absence of a fixed rent, a fixed period of occupancy or an area of the house over which he had exclusive possession, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court properly had found that there was no express or implied landlord-tenant relationship. Id., at 739, 952 A.2d 1235. Instead, the Appellate Court determined that Id., at 741, 952 A.2d 1235. This certified appeal followed. 5
We begin with the general principles of equitable subrogation. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. at 532-33, 849 A.2d 777.
Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, “[a] subrogee has no rights against a third person beyond what the subrogor had.” Continental Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Natural Gas Corp., 5 Conn.App. 53, 60, 497 A.2d 54 (1985); accord 16 L. Russ & T. Segalla, Couch on Insurance (3d Ed. 2005) § 222:5, p. 222-19 (). Similarly, “[t]he insurer ... is subject to any defenses the third party would have had against the insured.” 16 L. Russ & T. Segalla, supra, p. 222-21.
Although “[s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine ... which courts should be inclined to extend rather than restrict”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. at 543, 849 A.2d 777; 73 Am.Jur.2d 552, Subrogation § 10 (2001). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wasko v. Manella, supra, at 542-43, 849 A.2d 777.
Turning to the case at hand, we agree with the Appellate Court that our decisions in Wasko and DiLullo provide the controlling principles to be applied in the present case. We disagree with the Appellate Court however, insofar as it determined that those cases required the trial court to categorize the relationship between the parties as either landlord-tenant or host-social guest and to decide whether an action in equitable subrogation could be brought on the basis of that characterization.
In DiLullo, the issue before this court was whether, in the absence of a specific agreement between the landlord and the tenant covering the matter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wind Colebrook S., LLC v. Town of Colebrook
...of law, the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proving that its property has been overvalued. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo , 296 Conn. 253, 266–67, 994 A.2d 174 (2010) (establishing that reviewing court need not remand for factual determination when unchallenged evidence vitia......
-
Rathbun v. Health Net of the Ne., Inc.
...hold that 110 A.3d 317an insurer is prohibited from seeking subrogation against its own insured. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 296 Conn. 253, 269 n. 10, 994 A.2d 174 (2010) (if tortfeasor, who was insured's fiancé, had been added as insured to insurance policy, “the [insurer] wou......
-
Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.
...v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services , 259 Conn. 288, 309–310, 788 A.2d 1199 (2002) ; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo , 296 Conn. 253, 267–68, 994 A.2d 174 (2010) (citing cases). Again, turning to cases interpreting the federal act, we note that the United States Supreme Cou......
-
Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Champion Steel, LLC
...considered the expectations of the parties in determining whether subrogation should be allowed. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo , 296 Conn. 253, 270–75, 994 A.2d 174 (2010) ; Wasko v. Manella , supra, 269 Conn. at 547–49, 849 A.2d 777 ; DiLullo v. Joseph , 259 Conn. 847, 854–55, 79......
-
Equitable Subrogation in the Context of Interests in Real Property: the Basics and the Areas Needing Authoritative Clarification
...ensuring payments by a title insurer and litigation against attorneys. 55. See 122 Conn. App. at 95. 56. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 296 Conn. 253, 282, 994 A.2d 174 (2010) (Zarella, J., dissenting). 57. 122 Conn. App. at 95. 58. 123 Conn. at 243-244. 59. Id. at 247-248. 60. See 122 Conn.......
-
Annual Survey of Developments in Insurance Coverage Law
...WL 1224364, *2 (Conn. Super. Feb. 25, 2010). 32. Id. 33. Id.. at *6. 34. 699 F. Supp. 2d 439, 449-50 (D. Conn. 2010). 35. Id. at 458. 36. 296 Conn. 253, 994 A.2d 174 (2010). 37. Id. at 256. 38. Id. at 256-57. 39. Id. at 259, quoting Wasko v. Manella, 269 Conn. 527, 532-33, 849 A.2d 777 (200......