Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY v. PENDLETON KING ET AL. (SC 18658)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Harper, Js. Argued December 5, 2011--officially released March 27, 2012

Daniel P. Scapellati, with whom were Coleman C. Duncan, and, on the brief, Ralph W. Johnson III, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff Arrowood Indemnity Company). James T. Hargrove, with whom was Frederic P. Rickles, for the appellees (defendants). Robert G. Oliver, with whom were James D. Hine II and Michael J. Pinto, and, on the brief, Francis J. Drumm III, for the appellee (third party defendant National Surety Corporation).

Opinion

HARPER, J. This case, on certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, presents questions regarding the proper construction of terms in a homeowners insurance contract under Connecticut law. The predecessor insurance companies to the plaintiff, Arrowood Indemnity Company, brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut claiming that they did not have a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants, Pendleton King, Daphne King and their minor child, Pendleton King, Jr. (Pendleton, Jr.) (collectively, the Kings), for any liability arising out of injuries sustained by a third party while Pendleton, Jr., was driving his parents' all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on a private road in a private residential community where the Kings resided because, inter alia, the accident had not occurred ``on an insured location'' and the Kings' notice of a claim was untimely.1 The District Court rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff; see footnote 1 of this opinion; without reaching the issue of notice. Royal Indemnity Co. v. King, 512 F. Sup. 2d 117 (D. Conn. 2007). The Kings then appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which, sua sponte, certified the following three questions of unresolved state law to this court: ``(1) With respect to a claim for negligent entrustment under a liability policy that excludes coverage for `[a]rising out of . . . [t]he entrustment by an insured' `to any person,' `of a motor vehicle' other than `[a] motorized land conveyance designed for recreational use off public roads, not subject to motor vehicle registration and . . . [o]wned by an insured and on an insured location,' is the insured location ``(a) the place where the entrustment of the vehicle took place, or ``(b) the place where the vehicle is garaged, or ``(c) the place where the accident occurred? ``(2) In the absence of a policy definition of `premises', should a private road located within a residential development owned by the insured's homeowners association be considered `premises used . . . in connection with a [residence] premises' under the terms of a homeowner's insurance policy if the portion of the road where the liability arose is not regularly used by the insured, although other portions of the road are so used? ``(3) Under Connecticut law, where a liability insurance policy requires an insured to give notice of a covered claim `as soon as practical,' do social interactions between the insured and the claimant making no reference to an accident claim justify a delay in giving notice of a potential claim to the insurer?'' (Emphasis in original.) Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 605 F.3d 62, 80

cut trial courts had adopted conflicting approaches to the first certified question2 and that it could find no Connecticut case law resolving the second and third certified questions. Pursuant to General Statutes

Download Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King.pdf

Connecticut Law