Willoughby v. New Haven

• Decision Date: 05 September 2000
• Docket Number: (SC 16192)
• Citation: 254 Conn. 404,757 A.2d 1083
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MARION WILLOUGHBY v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN

254 Conn. 404

757 A.2d 1083

MARION WILLOUGHBY v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN

(SC 16192)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 14, 2000.

Officially released September 5, 2000.

McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, JS. Thomas W. Ude, Jr., deputy corporation counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Jon Berk, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

BORDEN, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal, on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, is whether a municipality that is a self-insurer pursuant to General Statutes §§ 14-129¹ and 38a-371 (c)² is required to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for a city fire department emergency vehicle while it is operated on public highways. We answer this question in the negative.

The plaintiff, Marion Willoughby, brought this action against the defendant, the city of New Haven, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, in order to recover underinsured motorist benefits. Willoughby v. New Haven, United States District Court, Docket No. 3:97CV00668 (D. Conn. July 29, 1999). The District Court certified four issues for this court to determine.³ Pursuant to the applicable certification procedures; Public Acts 1999, No. 99-107;⁴ we agreed to decide those issues. We conclude that a municipality that is a self-insurer, pursuant to §§ 14-129 and 38a-371 (c), is not required to provide underinsured motorist benefits for the emergency vehicle at issue.

The District Court's certification order included the following stipulated facts. At the time of the incident underlying this case, the plaintiff was a firefighter employed by the defendant's fire department. On November 23, 1994, responding to an injured person call, the plaintiff was driving a fire emergency vehicle (vehicle),⁵ specifically, a Ford Yankee coach F-350, equipped with a Ford Ambulance Preparation Package. The vehicle, which was owned by the defendant through its department of fire protection services, was an "[a]uthorized emergency vehicle" pursuant to General Statutes § 14-1 (a) (4),⁶ and was registered with the department of motor vehicles as a municipally owned motor vehicle with registration number 125-NH. The vehicle was a truck-type vehicle with a maximum payload of more than 4000 pounds and less than 6000 pounds, and was used by firefighters employed by the defendant primarily to transport medical emergency equipment and technicians to emergency calls.⁷

The plaintiff was driving the vehicle on a public highway when a collision occurred between it and a motor vehicle owned and operated by Anthony Palluzzi, who was not an employee, officer or agent of the defendant. As a result of the collision, which was caused by the negligence of Palluzzi in failing to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle as required by law, the plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries.

The plaintiff exhausted the $100,000 liability coverage possessed by Palluzzi, and recovered approximately $270,000 from the defendant pursuant to its workers' compensation plan, for which it is a self-insurer. Those payments have not fully compensated the plaintiff for his injuries. The following stipulated facts relate to the defendant's status as a self-insurer on and prior to November 23, 1994, the date of the incident. The defendant, a political subdivision of the state of Connecticut, was a self-insured municipality in accordance with the meaning of §§ 14-129 and 38a-371 for automobile and motor vehicle liability protection. The defendant owned more than twenty-five motor vehicles, and all of the motor vehicles, including the vehicle at issue in the present case, were protected by the defendant's self-insurance plan.

The defendant had established a specific fund for its self-insurance plan to pay for claims against it arising out of its compensation and public liability. The self-insurance plan had not been reduced to a written document outlining the limitations of the defendant's exposure for its motor vehicles. The defendant had not filed any written document that outlined the limitations of its liability exposure or uninsured and underinsured motorist exposure for its vehicles. The defendant did not request that its uninsured and underinsured motorist liability limits be less than its liability limits for its motor vehicles. At all times relevant to the circumstances of the present case, the defendant owned "[a]uthorized emergency vehicle[s]" as defined by § 14-1. In a letter dated August 9, 1985, the defendant notified the insurance commissioner that it was self-insured for its "auto fleet." In a letter dated February 23, 1990, in response to an inquiry from the insurance commissioner, the defendant reaffirmed its self-insurance plan for "auto liability." On November 23, 1994, the defendant did not possess any commercial insurance policies that would protect it or its employees against losses incurred as a result of either the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or other types of liability. The vehicle possessed a document of self-insurance in the vehicle. The questions certified to this court present questions of statutory interpretation. "The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature. Frillici v. Westport, 231 Conn. 418, 431, 650 A.2d 557 (1994). In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of this case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.... Id.; Carpenteri-Waddington, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 231 Conn. 355, 362, 650 A.2d 147 (1994); United Illuminating Co. v. Groppo, 220 Conn. 749, 755-56, 601 A.2d 1005 (1992)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bortner v. Woodbridge, 250 Conn. 241, 258-59, 736 A.2d 104 (1999).

I

The dispositive certified question raises the issue of whether a municipality that is a self-insurer, pursuant to §§ 14-129 and 38a-371 (c), is required to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for a New Haven fire department emergency vehicle. The plaintiff claims that such coverage is required because the vehicle at issue is a "[p]rivate passenger motor vehicle" within the definition of General Statutes § 38a-363 (e) (6).⁸ The plaintiff also claims that, even if the vehicle is not a private passenger motor vehicle, the self-insurance statutes require such coverage. The defendant argues, on the contrary, that the vehicle is not a private passenger motor vehicle and, therefore, does not fall within that class of motor vehicles required to provide underinsured motorist coverage as such. The defendant further argues that the self-insurance statutes do not require such coverage. We agree with the defendant.

Although this question requires our analysis of several statutory and regulatory provisions, our starting point is our underinsured motorist coverage statute, General Statutes § 38a-336.⁹ Section 38a-336 (a) (1) provides in relevant part: "Each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334...." Although § 38a-336 (a) (1) states generally that automobile liability insurance policies must provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, it provides that such coverage is governed by "the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334...."

We therefore turn to General Statutes § 38a-334 (a),¹⁰ which provides in relevant part: "The Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations with respect to minimum provisions to be included in automobile liability insurance policies issued after the effective date of such regulations and covering private passenger motor vehicles, as defined in subsection (e) of section 38a-363, motor vehicles with a commercial registration, as defined in section 14-1, motorcycles, as defined in section 14-1, motor vehicles used to transport passengers for hire, motor vehicles in livery service, as defined in section 13b-101, and vanpool vehicles, as defined in section 14-1, registered or principally garaged in this state...." By its language, § 38a-334 (a) specifically requires the commissioner to promulgate regulations regarding, inter alia, "uninsured motorists coverages" provided by "automobile liability insurance policies... covering" those classes of vehicles previously enumerated in that subsection.¹¹ Those specific classes of motor vehicles enumerated in § 38a-334 are "private passenger motor vehicles," "motor vehicles with a commercial registration," "motorcycles," "motor vehicles used to transport passengers for hire," "motor vehicles in livery service," and "vanpool vehicles," as those vehicles are defined in their respective sections.

Section 38a-334-6 (a)¹² of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides that the uninsured motorist coverage that it requires "shall insure the occupants of every motor vehicle to which the bodily injury liability coverage applies...." It is therefore necessary to refer to § 38a-334-5 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,¹³ which covers liability coverage. Section 38a-334-5 (a) of the regulations provides that its liability coverage requirements apply to "motor vehicle[s] owned or long-term leased by the named insured...." (Emphasis added.) The term "[m]otor [v]ehicle," as used in the regulations, is defined as: "private passenger motor vehicle ... commercial motor vehicle ... motorcycle ... public service motor vehicles ... motor vehicle in...