Barbarula ex rel. Estate of He v. Canal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:02-CV-1142(EBB).,3:02-CV-1142(EBB). |
| Citation | 353 F.Supp.2d 246 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Michael BARBARULA, Administrator of the ESTATE OF Jing Xian HE, v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Royal Insurance Company of America, Royal Indemnity Company and Royal Surplus Lines Inc. Co. |
Joel Thomas Faxon, Michael A. Stratton, Stratton Faxon, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.
John William Dietz, Halloran & Sage, Westport, CT, John W. Mills, Law office of John W. Mills LLC, New Haven, CT, Karen L. Karpie, Murphy & Karpie, Bridgeport, CT, Kevin R. Murphy, Springfield, MA, for Defendants.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT CANAL'S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DEFENDANTS THE ROYAL COMPANIES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Michael Barbarula, Administrator of the Estate of Jing Xian He, ("Plaintiff" or "Barbarula"), moves the Court for Partial Summary Judgment against Canal Insurance Company ("Canal") as to the validity of a so-denominated "MCS-90" endorsement to Canal's insurance policy (the "Policy"), at issue herein. [Doc. No. 40].1 Plaintiff contends that this obligatory federal endorsement, the MCS-90, mandates that the Policy call for payment to him of Canal's Policy obligations, inasmuch as Canal's Policy was not timely canceled under federal law at the time of the fatal accident herein.
Concomitantly, Canal has filed a Second Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 38], asserting that 2 Defendant Canal's Memorandum of Law in Support of Second Summary Judgment, at 3. (October 1, 2003). With regard to the bad faith claim brought against it, Canal postulates that, inasmuch as the Policy had been cancelled prior to the subject accident and prior to the initiation of the wrongful death case which followed, there was no duty for Canal to settle the case or to protect the legal interests of its insureds under the Policy.
Finally, Royal Insurance Company of America, Royal Indemnity Company, and Royal Surplus Lines, Ins. Co.3 move for summary judgment, also against the claims of Plaintiff herein. [Doc. No. 26]. A & F premises its motion on the fact that, as a matter of Connecticut law, a contingent coverage endorsement to the A & F Policy herein limits coverage to the minimum required by such law, or $20,000.00. See, in pertinent part, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 14-112(a). Accordingly, A & F asks this Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $20,000.00.
Excellent presentations of the historical facts in this case are to be found in the opinions in Canal Ins. Co. v. Haniewski, CV 0417942 (Conn.Super.Ct.) (Blue, J.) Memorandum of Decision (November 13, 2001) and Barbarula v. Canal Insurance Co., 3:02-CV-1142 (JCH) Ruling on Canal Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (September 11, 2003). This Court assumes familiarity with those Opinions and hereby incorporates them by reference. This Court will briefly address the relevant facts.
On September 12, 1996, at 6:31 p.m., a tractor-trailer truck driven by Carlos Reummele ("Reummele"), as a driver for Barbara Haniewski, d/b/a Salguod Warehouse and Transport ("Haniewski" or "Salguod"), was involved in a fatal accident — eighteen hours and thirty minutes after a policy of insurance issued by Canal to Haniewski had been cancelled, due to non-payment. The trailer attached to Salguod's truck had been leased from an entity known as Eagle Leasing ("Eagle").
The original litigation arising out of such accident was filed in state court in early July, 1997, in which the Plaintiff sued Haniewski, d/b/a/ Salguod, and Reummele, for wrongful death. Barbarula v. Haniewski, No. CV97 0437585 S (Conn.Super Ct.1997). Eagle was not a defendant in that action. On November 29, 2001, after a jury trial at the New Haven Superior Court, a verdict was returned in Plaintiff's favor, in the amount of $5,700,000.00 (Honorable Jon C. Blue). Plaintiff's verdict was not entered as a judgment until April 23, 2002 (Robinson, R, J). The final judgment was comprised of a verdict of $3,600,000.00 and offer of judgment interest of $2,100,000.00.4 To date, the judgment has not been paid.
Prior to the jury trial of the matter, on September 15, 1998, Canal filed a declaratory judgment action, naming as defendants Haniewski, Reummele, and Eagle, the persons and entities covered by an MCS-90 endorsement to Salguod's insurance policy. Canal Insurance Co. v. Hariewski, CV98 0417942 S (Conn.Super.Ct.)(Blue, J). Canal sought to, first, be absolved of the duty to defend and, second, be absolved of the duty to indemnify Haniewski, Reummele and Eagle.
Third, Canal sought a declaration of the substantive effects, if any, of the federally required MCS-90 endorsement attached to, and incorporated into, the Canal policy issued to Salguod.
Last, Canal's fourth declaratory request asked for "reimbursement of costs and attorney's fees spent in connection with this matter."
In the end, Judge Blue determined to respond to two of the four inquiries put to him. First, he declared that, due to timely cancellation of the Policy under state law, Canal had no duty to defend the original, underlying action. Second, inasmuch as it had prevailed on the duty to defend claim, Canal was owed costs from Haniewski, Reummele, and Eagle. Plaintiff was not, however, entitled to any attorney's fees. Memorandum of Decision, November 13,2001, at pp. 10-11. Judge Blue determined not to rule on the issue of indemnity. Id.
He also deferred decision with regard to the issue of the MCS-90 endorsement, as the repercussions of the MCS-90 mandates, if any, were to be answered by the federal court. Id. at 10.
In a motion for summary judgment the burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)(plaintiff must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment).
If the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has the burden of proof at trial, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "In such a situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Accord, Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1995)(movant's burden satisfied if it can point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of nonmoving party's claim).
The court is mandated to "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party...." Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 965, 113 S.Ct. 440, 121 L.Ed.2d 359 (1992). "Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis in original).
On May 4, 2004, the Supreme Court of Connecticut issued a decision, which is determinative, in part, of the present litigation between Plaintiff and Canal herein. DaCruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 268 Conn. 675, 846 A.2d 849 (2004)("DaCruz III").
In DaCruz I, as in the present case, plaintiff had secured a judgment against the named insured. State Farm, defendants' insurer, filed a Declaratory Judgment action in DaCruz I, asserting that it had no duty to defend or indemnify a defendant who was alleged to have assaulted DaCruz, based on exclusionary language in the State Farm policy at issue therein. The trial court, Blue, J.5 granted, in part, State Farm's declaratory judgment requests and issued such judgment with respect to State's Farm's claim that it had no duty to defend, based on such exclusionary language. As in the present case, Judge Blue did not decide whether there was a duty to indemnify.
As a result of Judge Blue's decision, State Farm refused to pay DaCruz's judgment against its named insured.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed motions for default against the primary defendants, which were granted by Superior Court Judge Curren. After a hearing on damages, Judge Curren entered judgment in favor of DaCruz.
DaCruz then brought a separate action against State Farm under the direct action statute, Conn.Gen.Stat., § 38a-321. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court (Levin, J.), found in favor of State Farm, granting its motion, and denying plaintiff's. Plaintiff appealed this decision.
The Appellate Court concluded that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Mara
...It thus follows that where no duty to defend exists, there is no duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Barbarula ex. rel. Estate of He v. Canal Ins. Co., 353 F.Supp.2d 246, 252 (D.Conn.2004). 37 As stated above, Middlesex has no duty to defend Mara in the underlying action. Accordingly, this Court ......
-
Tucker v. Am. Int'l Group Inc.
...the insurer may have against the assured under the policy.” 206 Conn. at 673, 539 A.2d 138; accord Barbarula ex rel. Estate of He v. Canal Ins. Co., 353 F.Supp.2d 246, 256 (D.Conn.2004). The Connecticut Supreme Court set forth three requisites of a cause of action under this statute: “(1) t......
-
Luizzi v. Pro Transport Inc., 02 CV 5388(CLP).
...was actually mailed within 35 days of the effective date of cancellation. See 49 C.F.R. § 387.7(b)(1). See Barbarula v. Canal Ins. Co., 353 F.Supp.2d 246, 254 (D.Conn.2004); Northland Ins. Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 63 F.Supp.2d 128, 134 (D.N.H.1999). The Notice of Cancellation sent by ......