Connecticut Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Raymark Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 13741,13741 |
| Citation | 215 Conn. 224,575 A.2d 693 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION v. RAYMARK CORPORATION, et al. |
Joseph C. Tanski, with whom were Arthur W. Young III and, on the brief, David J. Kramer, James A. Fulton and Douglas S. Skalka, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff).
Richard C. Robinson, with whom, on the brief, were Frank K. Heap and Joan S. Kato, for appellees-appellants (named defendant, et al.).
The plaintiff, Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (CIGA), is a nonprofit unincorporated legal entity created pursuant to General Statutes § 38-276 for the purpose of providing a resource for persons insured by or having claims against policies issued by an insurance company that has become insolvent. The defendants are Raymark Corporation and two of its affiliates, (collectively referred to as Raymark); the receiver of Transit Casualty Company (Transit), a Missouri insurance company that issued policies insuring Raymark against liability but has been declared insolvent and is now in receivership; 1 Connecticut Bank and Trust Company (CBT), which is the assignee of certain rights to recover under some Transit policies; 2 and ten other insurance companies that insure Raymark for liability.
The factual background that has given rise to the issues that CIGA seeks to resolve by a declaratory judgment is not disputed. The Raymark affiliated companies have their principal place of business in Trumbull and are the successors to Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (Raybestos), a corporation that was dissolved in 1982. This corporation from 1929 until 1982 manufactured and sold products, some of which contained asbestos, a carcinogenic and otherwise toxic substance. Because of these activities, numerous personal injury claims have been filed against Raymark that are covered by liability policies issued by the eleven insurance company defendants. As of January 29, 1988, 59,817 claims had been filed against Raymark, mostly by workers exposed to asbestos-containing products claimed to have been manufactured by Raybestos. Of these claims, 27,741 had been settled or had proceeded to judgment, leaving 32,076 claims pending. Additional claims were being filed at the rate of about 1000 per month. The average cost of settling each claim has been $5000.
Of the $393,000,000 of liability coverage available for payment of these asbestos related claims, the only coverage under policies issued by solvent insurers that has not yet been exhausted amounts to $30,000,000. Some of this remaining coverage is, however, senior to that provided under the policies issued by the defendant Transit, which has become insolvent and is in receivership. The six Transit policies purport to provide $32,000,000 of liability coverage for Raymark. CIGA, by virtue of the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act, General Statutes §§ 38-273 through 38-289, is now obligated to assume Transit's obligations under these policies.
CIGA brought this declaratory judgment action to resolve issues that have arisen concerning the extent of its obligation pursuant to General Statutes §§ 38-278 and 38-282 to pay "covered claim[s]," as defined by General Statutes § 38-275(6). Of the ten specific declarations sought by CIGA, two involve the interpretation of a provision of § 38-278 that restricts its obligation to pay covered claims to those exceeding $100 but not in excess of $300,000. Two others concern the provision of § 38-282 requiring a person having a covered claim that is also a basis for a claim under a policy issued by a solvent insurer first to exhaust his rights against such insurer. Two more relate to whether covered claims should be reduced by amounts the claimant has received or was eligible to receive by virtue of workers' compensation, medical insurance, or policies with other solvent insurers, including those whose policies provided coverage for claims against Raymark after exhaustion of the limits of the Transit policies. The remaining declarations sought by CIGA raise questions about (1) the effect of liens filed against a claimant's recovery by insurers; (2) the effect of payments received by claimants from sources other than insurance in reducing covered claims; (3) the obligation of CIGA to assess its members in the event that claims exceed its current resources; and (4) the duty of CIGA to defend Raymark and the application of defense expenses to a reduction of the Transit policy limits.
The trial court, upon motions of the plaintiff and Raymark for summary judgment, rendered a declaratory judgment ruling that the $300,000 claim limit of § 38-278 "applies to each claim and not the policies; that the defendant Raymark Corporation has no duty to exhaust underlying as well as excess policies before presenting a claim; that [CIGA] is prohibited by statute from paying any amounts to any of the defendant Raymark Corporation's other insurers; that [CIGA] is prohibited from paying any amounts to Raymark Corporation which are subject to any claim or lien by any of said defendant's other insurers to the extent that other insurers have liens or claims, which would be satisfied out of payments made by the plaintiff; that the $100 deductible applies to each claim and not to each policy; and that [CIGA] has a duty to pay defense costs if the Transit policies so provide." CIGA has appealed from this judgment and Raymark has cross appealed.
During argument of these appeals, this court suo motu raised the jurisdictional question of whether there has been compliance with the provision of Practice Book § 390 stating that "[t]he court will not render declaratory judgments upon the complaint of any person ... (d) unless all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof." None of the fifteen defendants whom CIGA has joined in this action can be said to represent the interests of those who have been injured by the asbestos products manufactured by Raymark or its predecessors and who have filed and continue to file claims relating to asbestos. These purported victims of Raymark's manufacturing activities have not been made parties, nor does the record indicate that they have been given notice of this action. Because these persons have claims against Raymark that are covered by the Transit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford Higgins Industries, Inc. v. City of Norwalk
...court of jurisdiction to render judgment; such failure may be remedied by subsequent notice); Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Raymark Corp., 215 Conn. 224, 230, 575 A.2d 693 (1990) (same). This principle is not dispositive of the claims concerning the 1995 and 1996 grand lists and P.A. 9......
-
Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc.
...of the pendency of the proceeding, and given reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard. Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Raymark Corporation, [215 Conn. 224, 229, 575 A.2d 693 (1990) ], quoting Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500, 508, 100 A. 22 (1917)." (Internal qu......
-
Batte-Holmgren v. Com'R of Public Health
...court's subject matter jurisdiction," failure to comply with notice requirement can be cured); Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Raymark Corp., 215 Conn. 224, 230, 575 A.2d 693 (1990) ("[t]he conclusion we have reached that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render its declara......
-
Mannweiler v. LaFlamme
...the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment. See, e.g., Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Raymark Corp., 215 Conn. 224, 229, 575 A.2d 693 (1990); Benz v. Walker, 154 Conn. 74, 77, 221 A.2d 841 (1966). [J]urisdiction of the subject matter is a question of......