Hermitage Ins. Co. v. Walters, Civ. No. 3:93CV01297 (PCD).

• Citation: 882 F. Supp. 31
• Decision Date: 10 April 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3:93CV01297 (PCD).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: HERMITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Vivian WALTERS d/b/a Sonny & Viv's Bar and Cafe and Ozell Jacobs.

882 F. Supp. 31

HERMITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Vivian WALTERS d/b/a Sonny & Viv's Bar and Cafe and Ozell Jacobs.

Civ. No. 3:93CV01297 (PCD).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

April 10, 1995.

Lori J. Kremidas, Pepe & Hazard, Michael Feldman, Hartford, CT, for plaintiff Hermitage Ins. Co.

Howard C. Eckenrode, Meuser, Eckenrode & Hayes, Milford, CT, for defendant Vivian Walters dba Sonny & Viv's Bar & Cafe.

Vivian Walters, Ansonia, pro se.

David A. Leff, Steven J. Defrank, Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt & Dow, P.C., New Haven, CT, for defendant Ozell Jacobs.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DORSEY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of its obligations under its insurance policy issued to defendant Walters in relation to defendant Jacobs' lawsuit against her. Plaintiff and Jacobs have moved for summary judgment. Bankruptcy proceedings resulted in dismissal of the case as to Walters.

Background

Movants are not in dispute as to the facts that follow. Walters operated Sonny & Viv's Bar and Cafe (the Bar) at which alcoholic beverages were sold to the public. In a suit in Connecticut's Superior Court, Jacobs claims to have been a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by Patrick Glover on August 18, 1990 when that vehicle was involved in a one-car accident. Jacobs claims to have sustained personal injuries which were caused by Glover's operation of the vehicle while intoxicated after visiting the Bar. Jacobs claims that Walters is liable for his injuries on the basis of negligence;

a) in providing alcoholic beverages to Glover contrary to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 30-86;

b) in providing alcoholic beverages to a minor;

c) in providing alcoholic beverages to Glover when he was intoxicated;

d) in failing to ascertain Glover's age;

e) in failing to supervise or warn Glover of intoxication;

f) in not preventing Glover from driving while intoxicated.

He further alleges that Walters' actions constituted reckless and wanton misconduct.

Plaintiff issued a liability insurance policy to Walters after she approached an insurance agent in 1989. (Dep. of Louis Poeta). Her previous insurance included Dram Shop coverage which covered liability arising from sale of alcoholic beverages, but that coverage had been cancelled for non-payment of premium. Id. at 14. Her application for a general liability policy was processed by a broker since Poeta was not licensed by Hermitage, which issued the policy. Id. at 16, 17. Poeta advised Walters that general liability policies do not cover liability for sale of liquor and recommended she apply for separate Dram Shop liquor liability insurance which is available for businesses selling liquor. Id. at 12. She executed an application for liquor liability or Dram Shop liability insurance but did not pay the premium and the policy was thus not issued. Id. at 10-11. The policy, as the parties agree to be relevant, reads:

This insurance does not apply:

(h) to bodily injury or property damage for which the insured or his indemnitee may be held liable

(1) as a person or organization engaged in the business of ... selling or serving alcoholic beverages ...

(i) by or because of the violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage, or

(ii) by reason of the selling, serving or giving of any alcoholic beverage to a minor or to a person under the influence of alcohol or which causes or contributes to the intoxication of any person ...

(2) if not so engaged, as an owner or lessor of premises used for such purposes, if such liability is imposed

(i) by, or because of the violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage, or

(ii) by reason of the selling, serving or giving of any alcoholic beverage to a minor or to a person under the influence of alcohol or which causes or contributes to the intoxication of any person;

but part (ii) of this exclusion does not apply with respect to liability of the insured or his indemnitee as an owner or lessor described in (2) above ....

Plaintiff claims that the liability policy issued excludes coverage for the liability asserted against Walters by Jacobs and for which Walters would be liable if Jacobs prevails in the state court action. Thus plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has no obligation under its policy to defend Walters in the Jacobs suit nor to indemnify her for a judgment against her therein. Jacobs, who has simply denied plaintiff's allegations of no liability, claims that he is entitled to judgment because plaintiff is not entitled to the declaratory judgment it seeks.

DISCUSSION

The issues presented are determined by the policy language. Jacobs does not argue that § (h)(1) is inapplicable, but that it "does not exclude liability for injuries arising out the sic insured's inadequate security or supervision or the insured's failure to warn or protect." He does not argue that there is ambiguity in the policy but premises his claim solely on "the express language of the policy." Insurer's obligations are measured by the claims in Jacobs state action, therefore a review of that complaint is necessary. Missionaries of Company of Mary, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 155 Conn. 104, 110, 230 A.2d 21 (1967).

In the two counts of Jacobs' state court complaint, ¶¶ 13)(a)-(n) specify the acts on which liability claimed. Subparagraphs (a)-(f), and (h)-(1) explicitly refer to conduct including, or incorporating, the serving, furnishing, delivering, selling or giving of alcoholic beverages to Glover or to minors, which included Glover and would only be relevant to the extent that they pertained to Glover. Unquestionably damages imposed on the basis of any of subparagraphs (a)-(f) or (h)-(1) would constitute holding Walters liable "as a person ... engaged in the business of ... distributing, selling or serving alcoholic beverages," the precise exclusionary language of policy section (h)-(1).

Jacobs alleges in ¶ 13(g) that Walters failed to provide personnel to check ages of patrons. That claim must be taken in the context of the whole complaint, for merely allowing minors on premises where liquor is sold and dispensed would not constitute a claim. It is only because Glover was allowed on the premises and thereafter...