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

ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. TERRA FIRMA, INC., ET AL. (SC 17873) (SC 17874)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued March 10--officially released June 3, 2008

Celeste M. Butera, pro hac vice, with whom were Pia E. Riverso, pro hac vice, and, on the brief, Thomas C. Clark and Melicent B. Thompson, for the appellant in Docket No. 17873 (plaintiff). Frank H. Santoro, with whom, on the brief, were R. Cornelius Danaher and Calum B. Anderson, for the appellant in Docket No. 17874 (third party defendant United States Fire Insurance Company). Michael S. Taylor, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and, on the brief, Eliot B. Gersten, S. Dwight Stephens, pro hac vice, and Robert N. Reed, certified legal intern, for the appellee (defendant Konover Construction Corporation). David P. defendant). Condon, for the appellee (named

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Royal Indemnity Company (Royal Indemnity), brought this action against the defendants, Terra Firma, Inc. (Terra Firma),1 and Konover Construction Corporation (Konover), seeking a judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Konover for liability arising out of Konover's own negligence under an insurance policy (Royal Indemnity policy) that it had issued to Terra Firma. Thereafter, Konover filed a counterclaim against Royal Indemnity seeking, a judgment declaring that Royal Indemnity was obligated to defend and indemnify it.2 Konover also filed a third party complaint against the third party defendant, United States Fire Insurance Company (United States Fire), seeking a judgment declaring that United States Fire had a duty to defend and indemnify Konover when the limits of the Royal Indemnity policy were exhausted under an insurance policy (United States Fire policy) that United States Fire had issued to Terra Firma.3 Konover subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that it was entitled to coverage under the Royal Indemnity policy and the United States Fire policy as a matter of law.4 Royal Indemnity then filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment and an opposition to Konover's motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that, as a matter of law, it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Konover for liability arising out of Konover's work. United States Fire also filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Konover was not an insured under the United States Fire policy. The trial court rendered partial summary judgment for Konover on its counterclaim against Royal Indemnity and on its third party complaint against United States Fire, and denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Royal Indemnity and United States Fire. Royal Indemnity and United States Fire then filed these separate appeals,5 claiming that the trial court improperly rendered partial summary judgment in Konover's favor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The trial court's memorandum of decision sets forth the following facts and procedural history. ``On September 30, 1998, Konover, the general contractor for construction of a BJ's Wholesale Club in Willimantic, entered into a subcontract with [Terra Firma] under which [Terra Firma] was to perform site work including excavation. Two clauses of that contract are germane to the resolution of the current dispute. An indemnification and hold harmless clause provided that [Terra Firma] would indemnify Konover and hold it harmless for damages caused in whole or in part by the negligence of [Terra Firma]. A separate clause required [Terra Firma] to procure, inter alia, general liability insurance in the amount of not less than one million dollars and

to name Konover as an additional insured. [Terra Firma] obtained such insurance in the amount of one million dollars per occurrence and two million dollars total from [Royal Indemnity] and excess insurance from [United States Fire].'' Royal Indemnity Co. v. Terra Firma, Inc., 50 Conn. Sup. 563, 564

Download Royal Indemnity Co v. Terra Firma, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law