In Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Paradis, 2008 WL 215867 (Conn., 2008), automobile dealer Crowley Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.'s liability insurer, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, brought an action for declaratory judgment that the dealer's policy did not provide umbrella coverage for the dealer's employee, Paradis; Paradis had been driving the motor vehicle in the accident that killed decedent Lamont. The Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of Universal.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the administrator of Lamont's estate and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The trial court noted that because the unicover policy explicitly named the individual insureds for each coverage part separately and Paradis was not listed as a designated person under the umbrella coverage, the definition of an insured for such coverage had a definite and precise meaning for which there was no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion. Thus, the court stated, efforts by the defendants to assert that Paradis had umbrella coverage failed.

 

The trial court also concluded that Connecticut General Statutes § 31-293a did not require the extension of umbrella coverage to Paradis, because it operated to enforce the law requiring the minimum coverage mandated by law, but not more. The court concluded that the mandatory minimum insurance required by § 14-112(a) did not abrogate the clear and unambiguous language of the unicover policy, which afforded different coverages to different classes of Crowley officers and employees, and that the statutory purpose of the minimum insurance statute was satisfied by Crowley's automotive coverage. Therefore, the financial responsibility law did not create coverage under the umbrella policy, and the garage coverage limit “more than satisfied” the financial responsibility provisions of § 31-293a.

When this decision ended up before the Connecticut Supreme Court on appeal, the defendants contended that the trial court improperly concluded that § 31-293a did not require the plaintiff to provide umbrella coverage for Paradis with respect to their claims against him in personal injury and wrongful death actions. Defendants claimed § 31-293a mandated umbrella coverage for Paradis in the underlying action because the unicover policy was to be read properly as a single policy, rather than multiple policies, and the plain language of § 31-293a thereby precluded the exclusion of Paradis from the umbrella coverage. Defendants also claimed that the fact that the policy provided the minimum coverage required by the financial responsibility laws did not save it from being nevertheless “null and void” under § 31-293a. The defendants further contended that the trial court improperly construed the terms of the umbrella coverage as not extending to Paradis.

 

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, explaining that because the trial court's memorandum of decision fully addressed the arguments raised in the appeal, it was adopting the trial court's decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues. Therefore, the court held that Paradis was not insured under the umbrella coverage, and excluding him from coverage was valid.