Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 29 June 2004
• Citation: 850 A.2d 1047,83 Conn. App. 526
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAMES ALLEN ET AL.

83 Conn. App. 526

850 A.2d 1047

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAMES ALLEN ET AL.

(AC 24190), (AC 24191).

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 19, 2004.

Officially released June 29, 2004.

Lavery, C. J., and Bishop and Peters, Js.

Neil Johnson, with whom was Heather K. Porto, for the appellants (defendants).

Kristen Schultze Greene, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

LAVERY, C. J.

The defendants, James Allen, doing business as Allen Landscaping, and William Shaw, appeal from the declaratory judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants claim on appeal that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff was not obligated to defend or to indemnify Allen in a lawsuit initiated against him by Shaw. The plaintiff, having issued to Allen a commercial general liability insurance coverage policy that specifically excluded from coverage Allen's employees, sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether it had the duty to defend or to indemnify Allen in the underlying negligence action brought against Allen by Shaw. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not have a duty to defend or to indemnify Allen because Shaw was an employee and not an independent contractor or a temporary worker.¹ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The court's memorandum of decision describes the underlying facts, which are undisputed. Allen is a sole proprietor doing business as Allen Landscaping, which, for a fee, provides landscaping services to customers. Shaw performed landscaping work for Allen in exchange for pay. The plaintiff provided commercial general liability coverage to Allen for a policy period of June 1, 1998, to June 1, 1999. Allen's policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to his employees arising out of and in the course of their employment with Allen or performing duties related to the conduct of Allen's business. Shaw was injured in an accident that occurred on May 25, 1999, while he operated a commercial riding mower that had been purchased by Allen. On June 16, 1999, Shaw filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. In a notice of claim signed by Shaw's attorney, those injuries were described as having arisen from an accident that occurred in the course of Shaw's employment by Allen.

On November 18, 1999, Shaw initiated a negligence action against Allen, alleging that the injuries sustained while operating Allen's commercial riding mower were due to Allen's negligence.² In connection with that underlying action, the plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action, which forms the basis of the present appeal, seeking a determination as to the extent of its obligation to defend or to indemnify Allen. Shaw seeks to have the plaintiff defend Allen and pay any damages awarded to Shaw in the underlying action. The plaintiff was defending the underlying tort action under a reservation of rights at the time it commenced this declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the "employer" retained the right to control not merely the result, but the means and methods used by the worker to obtain the desired result. After a trial, the court rendered a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the plaintiff was not obligated to defend or to indemnify Allen in the underlying tort action. The defendants now appeal.

The defendants claim that the court improperly rendered the plaintiff's declaratory judgment. In support of their claim, the defendants argue that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether Shaw was Allen's employee while that same question was simultaneously before the workers' compensation commissioner, that the court improperly determined that Shaw was an employee and not an independent contractor, that the court improperly determined that Shaw was not a temporary worker within the meaning of the insurance contract, and that the court improperly determined that a statement in the workers' compensation claim filed by Shaw, in which Shaw alleged that he was Allen's employee, was an admission. We disagree and address each argument in turn.

We observe that Practice Book § 17-54 provides that a court may award declaratory relief "as to the existence or nonexistence (1) of any right, power, privilege or immunity; or (2) of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such right, power, privilege or immunity does or may depend, whether such right, power, privilege or immunity now exists or will arise in the future." Practice Book § 17-55 permits a court to award declaratory relief if the following conditions are met: "(1) The party seeking the declaratory judgment has an interest, legal or equitable, by reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to the party's rights or other jural relations; (2) There is an actual bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement between the parties; and (3) In the event that there is another form of proceeding that can provide the party seeking the declaratory judgment immediate redress, the court is of the opinion that such party should be allowed to proceed with the claim for declaratory judgment despite the existence of such alternate procedure."

We afford the trial court "wide discretion to render a declaratory judgment unless another form of action clearly affords a speedy remedy as effective, convenient, appropriate and complete." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 308, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998). We conclude that nothing precluded the court from issuing declaratory relief in the present case.

I

We first address the defendants' argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether Shaw was Allen's employee while Shaw's workers' compensation case, in which he alleged that he was Allen's employee, was still pending. Specifically, the defendants argue that whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact to be determined by the workers' compensation commissioner. In support of that argument, the defendants rely on General Statutes § 31-275, which defines "employee" within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. (act), and General Statutes § 31-278, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the workers' compensation commissioner over all claims arising under the act. We are not persuaded.

As a threshold matter, we set forth the applicable standard of review for a claim challenging a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. "A determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record. . . .

"Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. . . . If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, it is axiomatic that a court also lacks the authority to enter orders pursuant to such proceedings. . . . [A] court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it. . . . [W]here a decision as to whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is required, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) ABB Automation, Inc. v. Zaharna, 77 Conn. App. 260, 263-64, 823 A.2d 340 (2003).

"A brief overview of the purpose, relevant provisions and relevant jurisdictional confines of the [act] is necessary to a resolution of the [defendants'] jurisdictional claims. The purpose of the workmen's compensation statute is to compensate the worker for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault, by imposing a form of strict liability on the employer. . . . The [act] compromise[s] an employee's right to a common law tort action for work related injuries in return for relatively quick and certain compensation.. . .

"We have previously observed that the workers' compensation commission, like any administrative body, must act strictly within its statutory authority . . . . It cannot modify, abridge, or otherwise change the statutory provisions under which it acquires authority unless the statutes expressly grant it that power. . . . [I]t is settled law that the commissioner's jurisdiction is confined by the [act] and limited by its provisions. . . . The commissioner exercises jurisdiction only under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation. . . . The parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon the commissioner by agreement, waiver or conduct. . . . The [act] is not triggered by a claimant until he brings himself within its statutory ambit. . . . Although the [act] should be broadly construed to accomplish its humanitarian purpose. . . its remedial purpose cannot transcend its statutorily defined jurisdictional boundaries." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 799-800, 712 A.2d 396, cert. denied sub nom. Slotnik v. Considine, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S. Ct. 542, 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998).

The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment to determine the extent of its duty, if any, to defend or to indemnify Allen. The plaintiff's declaratory judgment action is solely related to the extent of its contractual obligation to its insured and wholly unrelated to Shaw's claim for workers'...