Selective Insurance Company of America v. Main Street America Assurance Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 2020
• Docket Number: UWYCV18038631S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Selective Insurance Company of America et al. v. Main Street America Assurance Company et al.

Selective Insurance Company of America et al. v. Main Street America Assurance Company et al.

No. UWYCV18038631S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, Waterbury

January 29, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Gordon, Matthew D., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS, SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND WALL SYSTEMS, INC., AND THE DEFENDANT MAIN STREET AMERICA ASSURANCE COMPANY

MATTHEW DALLAS GORDON, JUDGE

The plaintiffs, Selective Insurance Company of America and Wall Systems, Inc., and the defendant, Main Street America Assurance Company, have filed cross motions for summary judgment regarding whether Wall constitutes an additional insured under a policy of insurance Main Street America insurance issued to Alva Drywall, LLC for purposes of a personal injury action brought against Wall by Olvin Pineda entitled Pineda, Olvin v. Fortunato Construction Group Inc., Wall Systems, Inc. RV Enterprise, LLC, and The Rumsey Hall School, Inc., Docket No. UWY-CV-15-6037123-S. Wall claims additional insured status under Alva’s policy with Main Street America on the grounds that Wall was performing subcontracting services for Alva at Rumsey Hall School in Washington, Connecticut at the time of Pineda’s injury. Main Street America claims that it is entitled to a summary judgment determination that Wall was not an additional insured under Alva’s policy because the subcontract between Alva and Wall was not signed until after Pineda’s alleged injury, and because the location of Wall’s work was not sufficiently described in the subcontract.

The court concludes that both cross motions for summary judgment must be denied because there are genuine issues of material fact that render summary judgment inappropriate.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. The courts hold the movant to a strict standard." (Citation omitted; quotation marks omitted.) State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tully, 322 Conn. 566, 573, 142 A.3d 1079 (2016).

DISCUSSION

The issue of whether there was an enforceable agreement between Wall and Alva when Pineda was injured was previously addressed in connection with a motion for summary filed in Pineda’s underlying personal injury action. In denying the motion for summary judgment in that case, the court (Lager, J.) noted the following:

"Alva claims there was no enforceable contract for indemnification at the time of Pineda’s alleged...