Young v. American Fidelity Ins. Co.
Citation | 479 A.2d 244,2 Conn.App. 282 |
Decision Date | 10 July 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 2378,2378 |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Linda Slicer YOUNG v. AMERICAN FIDELITY INS. CO. |
Jill E. Clayton, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Richard A. Fuchs, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
George D. Royster, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was John W. Lemega, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before DANNEHY, C.P.J., and HULL and DUPONT, JJ.
This case raises the issue of whether, in order to recover insurance proceeds under a family combination automobile policy, the claimant has the burden of proving that the "nonowned automobile" in question had not been furnished for the regular use of the named insured or of any relative. This precise question is a matter of first impression in Connecticut.
The facts are not disputed.
On July 18, 1972, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger on a motorcycle in Manchester. While standing at a stop sign, the motorcycle was hit from behind by an automobile owned by Dennis Quigley of Manchester and driven by his brother David Quigley, who resided with his parents in South Windsor. As a consequence of the collision, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries including the loss of her left leg below the knee.
The plaintiff brought suit against both Quigley brothers and against a passenger in the Quigley automobile. See Slicer v. Quigley, 180 Conn. 252, 429 A.2d 855 (1980). The jury in that action found the defendants liable and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $264,500. She subsequently collected the $20,000 face value of an insurance policy covering the automobile involved in the collision. The remaining $244,500 of the judgment remains unsatisfied.
The plaintiff brought the present action under General Statutes § 38-175 seeking to recover from the defendant insurer a portion of the unsatisfied judgment under a "Family Combination Automobile Policy" issued by the defendant to the parents of David Quigley, the driver of the car. The policy covered all relatives living at home who drive any nonowned automobiles. The defendant admits that David Quigley was a relative living at home. The policy also defines a nonowned automobile as "an automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative ...."
The defendant raised the special defense that the driver, David Quigley, was furnished the car, a Fiat, for his regular use and was therefore not covered under the policy. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case at trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict which the court denied. In its charge to the jury, the court stated that the plaintiff had the burden of proof on the "regular use" issue. The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff and awarded her the full amount of the defendant's $25,000 policy. On motion by the defendant, the court, M. Hennessey, J., set aside the verdict and rendered judgment for the defendant, stating that "the jury could not have reached the conclusion they did under the court's charge." The plaintiff appeals 1 from the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The plaintiff briefed two principal issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) whether the trial court improperly placed the burden of proving an exception to coverage 2 on the plaintiff, rather than on the defendant. 3
We will first consider the question of burden of proof since our conclusion that the court erroneously allocated to the plaintiff the burden of proving that the nonowned Fiat was not furnished for the regular use of David Quigley, substantially disposes of the case.
The general rule in Connecticut was stated in Harty v. Eagle Indemnity Co., 108 Conn. 563, 565, 143 A. 847 (1928), as follows:
Manthey v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 127 Conn. 516, 519, 18 A.2d 397 (1941); accord Rochon v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 118 Conn. 190, 195, 171 A. 429 (1934).
On the other hand, the burden of proving an exception to a risk is on the insurer. O'Brien v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 143 Conn. 25, 29, 119 A.2d 329 (1955). A condition precedent is one which is to be performed before some right dependent thereon accrues, or some act dependent thereon is performed. Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.). "The object of an exception is to exclude that which would otherwise be included, to take special cases out of a general class." Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.). "By 'exception' of course is meant an exclusion of one or more of the risks otherwise generally insured against ...." Kirkby v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 35 F.2d 126 (6th Cir.1929).
In Hill v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, 122 Conn. 193, 202, 188 A. 277 (1936), the defendant insurer had issued a blanket public liability policy which insured against loss or damage sustained by persons other than employees of the insured who were injured while on the insured premises. Following the issuance of the policy, a tenant of the insured was injured on a stairway in the insured's building. The insurer pleaded as a special defense that the insured had undertaken structural alterations or repairs on the insured premises, that these alleged repairs had been done without the permission of the insurer, that the policy did not cover injuries due to hazardous conditions created by unauthorized alterations or repairs, and that the tenant-claimant's injuries arose from hazardous conditions created by unauthorized repairs. The Hill court stated: (Citations omitted.) Id; see also Firestine v. Poverman, 388 F.Supp. 948 (D.Conn.1975); Fogarty v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 120 Conn. 296, 299-300, 180 A. 458 (1935); Lounsbury v. Protection Ins. Co., 8 Conn. 458, 466 (1831).
A very similar question was involved in Rathbun v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 144 Conn. 165, 128 A.2d 327 (1956). The court in that case stated: "The case has been reserved for advice upon the construction of a clause excluding coverage in an automobile liability insurance policy." Id., 166, 128 A.2d 327. The stipulated facts were as follows: Id., 166-67, 128 A.2d 327.
Although the court treated the matter as an exception, it did not allude to the burden of proof in deciding as a matter of law that, on the stipulated facts, Joseph's sister, Ina, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...19, 204 P.2d 106 (1949); Pacific Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 56 Cal.App.2d 597, 132 P.2d 846 (1943); Young v. American Fidelity Ins. Co., 2 Conn.App. 282, 479 A.2d 244 (1984); Home Insurance Co. v. Kennedy, 52 Del. 42, 152 A.2d 115 (1959); State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. v. Hen......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson
...conditions precedent to foreclosure, as established by the note and mortgage, have been satisfied"); cf. Young v. American Fidelity Ins. Co. , 2 Conn. App. 282, 285, 479 A.2d 244 (1984) ("one instituting an action [on] an insurance policy is ... obliged to allege in his complaint ... that t......
-
Remington Arms Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 89-420-JLL.
...an exclusion removes the right to coverage, which is already vested in the insured under the policy. Young v. America Fidelity Insurance Co., 2 Conn.App. 282, 479 A.2d 244, 246-47 (1984). However, the burden of proving the satisfaction of a condition precedent in an insurance policy under C......
-
Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 3177
...is on the insurer. O'Brien v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 143 Conn. 25, 29, 119 A.2d 329 (1955); Young v. American Fidelity Ins. Co., 2 Conn.App. 282, 286, 479 A.2d 244 (1984). Generally, in order to establish a prima facie case of arson for purposes of denying coverage under an insu......