Opinion
FBTCV126026958S.
12-14-2012
PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT v. Monica HERNANDEZ et al.
Wolf Horowitz & Etlinger LLC, Hartford, for Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Wolf Horowitz & Etlinger LLC, Hartford, for Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut.
SOMMER, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff, Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut (hereinafter " Patrons"), brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesada or Migdalia Hernandez in the lawsuit brought against them by Anna Maria Angelo, Conservator of the Person and Estate of Victoria Angelo entitled Anna Marie Angelo, Conservator of the Person and Estate of Victoria Angelo v. Sergio Quesada, Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez, which is currently pending in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Bridgeport at Bridgeport, bearing the Docket Number FBT-CV-11-5029566-S, (hereinafter the " Angelo lawsuit"). For the purpose of this motion, the court has adopted the factual summary of the Angelo lawsuit as presented by plaintiff in its memorandum.
As of the date of the filing of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, certain defendants have been defaulted for failure to file a responsive pleading. Simultaneous with the filing of its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff is filing Motions for Default Judgment directed to those Defendants who are in default. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that its Motion for Summary Judgment be applicable to all Defendants not in default as of the date the Court rules on its Motion for Summary Judgment.
The underlying Angelo lawsuit arises out of a single-vehicle car accident. Patrons is defending its three policyholders through two Patrons' homeowner insurance policies issued to Monica, Patrons does not have a duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders based upon the Motor Vehicle Exclusion contained in the subject homeowner insurance policies. In the underlying Angelo lawsuit, Anna Maria Angelo who is conservator of (hereinafter " Angelo") Victoria Angelo alleges that Victoria a passenger in a vehicle which was being driven by Defendant Sergio Quesada, went off the road and struck a utility pole. Angelo alleges Monica Hernandez owned the vehicle Sergio Quesada was operating and that she is legally responsible for Victoria Angelo's injuries because she owned the vehicle and negligently entrusted her vehicle to him. Angelo further alleges that Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez, Defendant Sergio Quesada's parents, were negligent in permitting him to drive the vehicle Monica Hernandez owned.
A. The Angelo Lawsuit
In the Angelo Complaint, Angelo alleges that on March 21, 2011, at approximately 11:03 a.m., Victoria Angelo was a rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez and driven by Sergio Quesada which was traveling in an easterly direction on Commerce Drive in Shelton, Connecticut. Angelo further alleges 1) Sergio Quesada was operating the vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez with permission of the owner pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-183 and/or pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-182, 2) that on said date and time, as Sergio Quesada attempted to negotiate a left hand curve in the road, the vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez went off the right side of the road and struck a utility pole head-on thereby causing Victoria Angelo to sustain life threatening injuries, losses and damages.
In the First Count of the Angelo Complaint, directed against Sergio Quesada and Monica Hernandez, Angelo alleges that the injuries, losses and damages sustained by Victoria Angelo were caused by the carelessness and negligence of Sergio Quesada in connection with his operation of the motor vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez and that Sergio Quesada and Monica Hernandez are legally responsible for Victoria Angelo's injuries and damages.
In the Second Count of the Angelo Complaint, directed against Monica Hernandez, Angelo alleges Monica Hernandez 1) knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known Sergio Quesada had never held a valid driver's license 2) knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that by reason of Sergio Quesada's inexperience in driving an automobile, if she entrusted her vehicle to Sergio Quesada she would be exposing others, including passengers such as Victoria Angelo, to an unreasonable risk of injury, and 3) Monica Hernandez's negligent entrustment of her vehicle to Sergio Quesada was a substantial factor in causing the motor vehicle accident and the injuries and losses sustained by Victoria Angelo.
In the Third and Fourth Count of the Angelo Complaint, directed against Maurice Quesada, Angelo alleges Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez are father and mother of Sergio Quesada and exercised parental control over him, 2) knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known Sergio Quesada had never held a valid driver's license, yet he permitted their son to drive a vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez and 3) that they knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that by reason of Sergio Quesada's inexperience in driving an automobile, if they allowed Sergio Quesada to drive the vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez, he would be exposing others, including passengers such as Victoria Angelo, to an unreasonable risk of injury.
B. The Patrons Policies of Insurance
Patrons issued a homeowner's policy of insurance to Monica Hernandez, Policy No. HCT 6047999, effective from September 20, 2010 through September 20, 2011 (hereinafter " the Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy"). See Affidavit of Paul Testa of Patrons Mutual Insurance Company, Monica Hernandez is the named insured under the policy issued to her. Her husband, Maurice Quesada, is also an " insured" under the policy because he is her spouse and is a resident of her household. Patrons is providing a defense to Monica Hernandez and Maurice Quesada in the Angelo lawsuit under a complete reservation of rights. Patrons issued a homeowner's policy of insurance to Migdalia Hernandez, Policy No. HCT 6049236, effective from July 14, 2010 through July 14, 2011 (hereinafter " the Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy"). Migdalia Hernandez is the named insured under the policy issued to her. Her son, Sergio Quesada, is also an " insured" under the policy because he is her relative and is a resident of her household. Patrons is providing a defense to Migdalia Hernandez in the Angelo lawsuit under a complete reservation of rights.
Both Patrons Homeowner's Policies exclude from coverage bodily injury resulting from the use of a motorized vehicle. The Patrons Policies provide:
We" do not pay for " bodily injury" or " property damage" resulting from one or more of the following excluded " occurrences, " regardless of other causes or " occurrences" that contribute to or aggravate the " bodily injury" or " property damage, " whether such causes or " occurrences" act to produce the " bodily injury" or " property damage" before, at the same time as, or after the excluded " occurrence."
One of the excluded occurrences is:
c. " bodily injury" or " property damage" which results from the ownership, ownership, operation, maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning, entrusting, supervision, loading, or unloading of ‘ motorized vehicles, ’ trailers or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an " insured."See Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 19 of 29, exclusion c.; Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 19 of 29, exclusion c. Both Patrons Policies define " Motor vehicle" as: " ‘ Motor vehicle’ means a ‘ motorized vehicle’ if: a. it is subject to " motor vehicle" registration; or b. it is designed for use on public roads." See Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 3 of 29, definition 11; Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 3 of 29, definition 11. Both Patrons Policies define " Motorized vehicle" as: " ‘ Motorized vehicle’ means a self-propelled land or amphibious vehicle regardless of method of surface contact." See Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 3 of 29, definition 10; Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 3 of 29, definition 10.
Both Patrons Policies provide that: " [t]he words ‘ you’ and ‘ your’ mean the person or persons named as the insured on the ‘ declarations.’ This includes ‘ your’ spouse if a resident of ‘ your’ household." See Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 2 of 29, definition 1; Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, attached to Exhibit B as Exhibit 2, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 2 of 29, definition 1. Monica Hernandez is the named insured under the Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy. Her husband, Maurice Quesda, is also an insured under the policy because he is her spouse and is a resident of her household.
Both Patrons Policies also define " Insured" as follows: " ‘ Insured’ means: a. ‘ you’; b. ‘ your’ relatives if ‘ residents' of your household; ..." See Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 2 of 29, definition 7; Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Form 3 Ed. 2.0, p. 2 of 29, definition 7. Migdalia Hernandez is the named insured under the Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy. Her son, Sergio Quesada, is also an " insured" under the policy because he is her relative and is a resident of her household.
The bodily injuries alleged to have been sustained by Victoria Angelo resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez and operated by Sergio Quesada. There is no interpretation of the above facts which would establish that Patrons has a duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez or Maurice Quesada under the Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy because the Angelo lawsuit alleges bodily injury resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle owned by an " insured" under the Monica Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, i.e. Monica Hernandez. Patrons argues that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Migdalia Hernandez under the Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy because the Angelo lawsuit alleges bodily injury resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle operated by an " insured" under the Migdalia Hernandez Homeowner's Policy, Migdalia Hernandez's resident relative son Sergio Quesada.
Therefore, Patrons has no duty to defend and indemnify Monica Hernandez, Migdalia Hernandez or Maurice Quesada in the Angelo lawsuit based upon the Motor Vehicle Exclusion contained in the subject homeowners insurance policies.
II. Legal Analysis
Practice Book § 17-49 states that summary judgment " shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." " The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law; ... and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Thompson & Peck, Inc. v. Division Drywall, Inc., 241 Conn. 370, 374, 696 A.2d 326 (1997) (quoting Doty v. Mucci, 238 Conn. 800, 805-06, 679 A.2d 945 (1996)).
" A ‘ genuine’ issue has been ... described as a ‘ triable, ’ substantial' or ‘ real’ issue of fact which can be maintained by substantial evidence." United Oil Co., Inc. v. Stamford Urban Redev't Comm'n, 158 Conn. 364, 378, 260 A.2d 596 (1969) (internal citations omitted). " A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case." Id. (citation omitted). The test to be used in determining if summary judgment is appropriate is whether the moving party would be entitled to a directed verdict if the same set of facts were presented at trial. Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242, 246-47, 571 A.2d 116 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A directed verdict is properly rendered if a trier of fact cannot " reasonably and legally find in any other fashion." Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 222, 682 A.2d 106 (1996); Boehm v. Kish, 201 Conn. 385, 389, 517 A.2d 624 (1986).
Where a party has demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment, the granting of the motion is consistent with notions of justice among the litigants and with broader public policy concerns. The summary judgment mechanism is " ... designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue where there is no real issue to be tried." See Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989).
" [C]onstruction of a contract of insurance presents a question of law for the court ..." Moore v. Continental Casualty Co., 252 Conn. 405, 409, 746 A.2d 1252 (2000). In Moore, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer in a declaratory judgment action, holding that the insurer's duty to defend was not triggered by the allegations of a complaint brought against the defendant's policyholder. Whether Patrons has a duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesda and Migdalia Hernandez in the Angelo lawsuit is a question of law.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that where a complaint alleges a liability which the policy does not cover, the insurer has no duty to defend that lawsuit. QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343, 354, 773 A.2d 906 (2001). The duty to defend is significantly broader than the duty to indemnify. DaCruz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 268 Conn. 675, 688, 846 A.2d 849 (2004). Therefore, " where there is no duty to defend, there is no duty to indemnify" and a determination that there is no duty to defend necessarily means that there is no duty to indemnify. Id. Patrons seeks to a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez as to the claims asserted against them in the Angelo lawsuit because these claims fall within the Motor Vehicle Exclusion contained in the subject homeowners' insurance policies.
As outlined above, both Patrons Homeowner's Policies contain a Motor Vehicle Exclusion which exclude coverage for " ‘ bodily injury’ or ‘ property damage’ which results from the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning, entrusting, supervision, loading, or unloading of ‘ motorized vehicles, ’ trailers or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an ‘ insured’ " and contain the same definition of " motorized vehicle."
Patrons cites Connecticut Supreme and Appellate courts decisions which hold that similarly worded Automobile Exclusions in homeowner's insurance policies are unambiguous and that such exclusions operate to exclude coverage for injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. See New London County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nantes, 303 Conn. 737, 753-54 (2012); New London County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bialobrodec, 137 Conn.App. 474, 479-80 (2012). See also Hogle v. Hogle, 167 Conn. 572, 356 A.2d 172 (1975); United Services Auto. Association v. Kaschel, 84 Conn.App. 139, 851 A.2d 1257 (2004). One of these cases considered a negligent supervision claim and held that the Automobile Exclusion operated to exclude coverage for a claim of negligent supervision.
Bialobrodec, supra, the underlying plaintiff sued the insured parents for the allegedly negligent supervision of their son, because they allowed him to purchase the motorcycle to which he provided plaintiff's decedent access resulting in his death. Bialobrodec, 137 Conn.App. at 476. The trial court granted summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action finding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insureds because the causes of action arose out of the decedent's use of a motor vehicle or the negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle, which were excluded from coverage under the homeowner policy. Id. at 477. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's attempt to separate his negligent supervision theory from the factual allegations in his complaint regarding the accident and injuries arising from the use of the motorcycle holding that the facts alleged in the underlying complaint " underlie and undercut his claim that his negligent supervision cause of action stands alone and is separate from any claims arising from the motorcycle accident because they leave no doubt that the injuries for which he seeks to recover arose out of the decedent's use of the motorcycle owned by an insured under the policy issued by the plaintiff." Id. at 481. The court affirmed the judgment of trial court holding on summary judgment that the plaintiff did not have a duty to defend the parents against the negligent supervision claim based on the terms of the motor vehicle exclusion in the applicable insurance policy. Id.
In this case, Angelo is claiming that Victoria Angelo's injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident, in which Sergio Quesada was operating a motor vehicle owned by Monica Hernandez. The fact that the legal theory for one of the claims against Monica Hernandez and the claims against Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez are for negligent supervision or entrustment does not change that the injuries sustained by Victoria Angelo resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle.
III. Conclusion:
Defendants have not filed any opposition to plaintiff's motion. Patrons is entitled to a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez in the Angelo lawsuit because there is no genuine issue of material fact the claims alleged in the Angelo lawsuit fall within the scope of the Motor Vehicle Exclusion contained in the subject insurance policies.
Summary judgment shall enter in its favor of Patrons Mutual Insurance Company. Further, Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut has no duty to defend or indemnify Monica Hernandez, Maurice Quesada and Migdalia Hernandez for all claims alleged against them in the Angelo lawsuit.