Team Rental Group v. ITT Hartford Group

• Decision Date: 08 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. CV980578453,CV980578453
• Citation: 46 Conn. Sup. 480,755 A.2d 382
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: (Conn.Supp. 2000) TEAM RENTAL GROUP, INC. v. ITT HARTFORD GROUP, INC., ET AL. - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD

755 A.2d 382 (Conn.Supp. 2000)

TEAM RENTAL GROUP, INC. v. ITT HARTFORD GROUP, INC., ET AL.

No. CV980578453

SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD

December 8, 1998, Memorandum Filed^*

Kerin & Canty, for the plaintiff.

O'Keefe, Phelan & Jackson, for the defendants.

Before: HON. JERRY WAGNER, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

OPINION:

HON. JERRY WAGNER, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

In this action, the plaintiff, Team Rental Group, Inc. (Team Rental), a car rental company, seeks to recover damages from the named defendant and the defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Inc., insurance carriers for Felix Velez, for property damage to an automobile rented by him from Team Rental. That automobile was later damaged in an accident when it was being operated by Michael Velez, a grandson of Felix Velez, allegedly without authority.

The following facts appear to be undisputed. Felix Velez was insured under an automobile policy issued by the defendants. On September 13, 1996, Felix Velez rented a car from the plaintiff, naming himself as the sole authorized driver. While Felix Velez was asleep, his grandson, Michael Velez, took the keys to the rental car from Felix Velez' jacket and proceeded to drive the vehicle. Michael Velez was neither a named insured on Felix Velez' automobile policy nor was he named as an authorized driver on the car rental agreement. Felix Velez did not give Michael Velez permission to take his keys or to drive the rental car, and Michael Velez knew that he did not have permission to take the keys or to drive the rental car. On the morning of September 14, 1996, while Michael Velez was driving the rental car, he was involved in an accident resulting in property damage to the rental car. The plaintiff brought a negligence action against Felix Velez to recover sums for the property damage to the rental car and received a judgment on November 26, 1997, in the amount of $ 17,014.48.

Pursuant to General Statutes 38a-321, the plaintiff brings the present action against Felix Velez' automobile insurance carriers, alleging that the judgment against Felix Velez for property damage to the rental car was not paid within thirty days and that the defendants have failed to assume liability for the loss in violation of 38a-321.

The defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that coverage is excluded under the policy for damages to a car rented to the insured and for damages to a nonowned auto used by a family member without a reasonable belief that he was entitled to do so. The plaintiff argues that coverage exists under the policy for a nonowned auto used as a temporary substitute for the insured's own auto while it is out of normal use, and the rental car qualifies as such. The plaintiff argues further that coverage exists because Felix Velez reasonably believed that he was entitled to use the rental car, even if Michael Velez did not.

I

The plaintiff claims that coverage exists under part A, "LIABILITY COVERAGE," of Felix Velez' automobile insurance policy. The insuring agreement, contained in part A, provides in relevant part: "We will pay damages for . . . property damage for which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident. . . . We have no duty to defend any suit or settle any claim for . . . property damage not covered under this policy." The "EXCLUSIONS" section provides in relevant part: "We do not provide Liability Coverage for any insured . . . 2. For property damage to property owned or being transported by that insured. 3. For property damage to property: a. Rented to; b. Used by; or c. In the care of; that insured."

In Lyon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 140 Conn. 304, 99 A.2d 141 (1953), our Supreme Court held that the insurance company was not liable under a liability insurance policy for any sums which the insured was obligated to pay as a result of fire damage to autos left at the insured's garage for repairs. At issue was a policy exclusion which provided: "This policy does not apply to property owned by, rented to, in charge of or transported by the Insured." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 307. Agreeing that the insured was "in charge of" the automobiles at the time the damage to them occurred, the court affirmed the trial court's determination that coverage was excluded. Id., 311.

A similar exclusion was at issue in Connecticut Car Rental, Inc. v. Patla, 41 Conn. App. 632, 677 A.2d 967 (1996). The exclusion provided that there was no coverage for "injury or destruction of property an insured person owns, is in charge of, or rents." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 636. Relying on Lyon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 140 Conn. 304, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that coverage was excluded based on the fact that the insured, who was operating a rented vehicle, was "in charge of" the vehicle when it was damaged. Id., 638. The court explained: "The exclusion of coverage for damage to 'property an insured person owns, is in charge of or rents,' in essence, means that only 'liability coverage,' and not 'collision coverage,' is provided. It means that coverage is provided for liability for damage inflicted on others and their property by an insured's operation of a covered vehicle. Coverage is not provided for liability for damage caused to the vehicle that, under the control of the insured, inflicts the damage. The ... claim [made to the insurance company] is essentially a claim for 'collision coverage,' that is, coverage of damage to the vehicle 'in the control of' the insured at the time of the incident in question. Such damage is not covered." Id., 638-39.

Finally, in Hine v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 20 Conn. Supp. 455, 139 A.2d 500 (1958), the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against McCleary Bros., Inc.(McCleary), for property damage negligently inflicted upon the plaintiffs' truck by employees of McCleary while the truck was being gratuitously loaned to McCleary. The plaintiffs then brought suit against McCleary's automobile...