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. ******************************************************

CONNECTICUT MEDICAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHN KULIKOWSKI (SC 17930)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued October 26, 2007--officially released March 18, 2008

Richard A. Silver, with whom were Amanda R. Whitman and, on the brief, Angelo A. Ziotas, for the appellant (substitute defendant Marion P. Kulikowski).

Louis B. Blumenfeld, with whom was Lorinda S. Coon, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

SCHALLER, J. In this action for a declaratory judgment, the substitute defendant, Marion P. Kulikowski,1 appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Connecticut Medical Insurance Company. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded as a matter of law that a nurse practitioner referenced by job title, but not listed as a named insured, in the declarations page of a physician's medical malpractice insurance policy, was not a separately insured individual under the policy. The defendant contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the subject policy was unambiguous and that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the nurse practitioner, Ann Ciambriello, was a named insured under the policy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following undisputed relevant facts. John Kulikowski, the original defendant in the present case; see footnote 1 of this opinion; had brought the underlying medical malpractice action against James Ralabate, a physician, and Ciambriello, Ralabate's employee, making separate and individual allegations of medical negligence against each of them in connection with his claim that they had failed to diagnose and treat him for a central nervous system infection.2 The plaintiff had issued a professional liability insurance policy to Ralabate that provided individual professional liability coverage limits of $1 million per medical incident with a $4 million aggregate limit. In accordance with the policy terms, the plaintiff provided a defense for both Ralabate and Ciambriello in the underlying action. In partial settlement of the underlying action, the plaintiff paid Kulikowski $1 million.3 The plaintiff instituted this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Ciambriello is not a separately insured individual under the policy entitled to a separate $1 million limit of professional liability coverage separate from and additional to the $1 million limit of individual professional liability coverage provided to Ralabate. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Ciambriello was a separately insured individual under the terms of the policy. The trial court agreed and rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal followed.4 The defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that as a matter of law, Ciambriello was not a separately insured individual under the policy. Specifically, the defendant contends that the declarations page--which referenced by job title two nurse practitioners employed by Ralabate, and listed ``[p]aramedical [e]mployee [c]overage,'' a term not defined anywhere in the policy, as one type of coverage provided

under the policy--rendered the policy ambiguous as to whether Ciambriello was a named insured, or, at least, a separately insured individual, under the policy. We are not persuaded. We first set forth the applicable standard of review. ``Practice Book

Download Connecticut Medical Ins. Co. v. Kulikowski.pdf

Connecticut Law