Opinion
No. CV 03-0479852-S
November 30, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The factual allegations of this complaint are that on or about January 31, 2003 the plaintiff Anthony R. Arnone was operating a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Transportation General, Inc. (doing business as Metro Taxi). Mr. Arnone was a taxi driver and was operating the vehicle under a leasing agreement between himself and Transportation General, Inc. At that time, Mr. Arnone was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle which was uninsured. Mr. Arnone alleges that the operator of the other vehicle was negligent, and that the negligence caused the accident and resultant injuries to him. The plaintiff, Mr. Arnone, claims that Transportation General, Inc. is liable to him under the provisions of Connecticut General Statute 38a-336. Specifically, he alleges that since the owner and operator of the vehicle which caused the accident was uninsured, there being no other insurance coverage, the injuries sustained by him are the "legal responsibility" of the defendant pursuant to the terms of Sec. 38a-336 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
The defendant Transportation General, Inc. has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant alleges that it does own vehicles and that it leases said vehicles to its drivers as independent contractors. The independent contractors operate the vehicles as taxicabs.
A written lease exists between the defendant and the plaintiff. One of the provisions of the lease indicates that the lessee, the plaintiff, must maintain liability insurance in full force and effect on the vehicle he is driving. The insurance can be acquired independently or in the alternative, can be acquired through the defendant Transportation General, Inc. If the insurance is acquired through the lessor, the insurance is paid on a weekly basis in advance each week. The lease agreement also contains the following language: "The automobile liability insurance provided through lessor shall not insure lessee against any loss or injury that it may sustain in connection with operation of the vehicle." That provision appears in the lease agreement under paragraph 9 under the heading "Insurance." This particular language is part of the clause outlining the conditions under which insurance may be purchased through the lessor. The next paragraph contains provisions obligating the lessee to immediately report any accident, collision or impact involving the vehicle, and further obligating the lessee to cooperate with the lessor, its insurer and representative in the investigation and defense of any suit. That paragraph contains the following language: "Lessor shall not be responsible or liable for any injury to lessee resulting from lessee's use or operation of such taxicab."
"Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proofs 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 . . ." Scrapchansky v. Plainfield, 226 Conn. 446, 450 (1993). It is fundamental in ruling on a summary judgment that the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party Johnson v. Meehan, 225 Conn. 528 (1993).
A decision on the issue of summary judgment in this case should begin with an examination of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 38a-336. As has been observed by our Appellate Court, "Section 38a-336 is one of a series of statutes governing motor vehicle insurance in this state. Under General Statute Section 38a-371(a)(1), the owner of a private passenger motor vehicle that is required to be registered in this state must "provide and continuously maintain throughout the registration period security in accordance with Sections 38a-334 to 38a-343, inclusive." Platcow v. Yasuda Fire and Marine Ins. Co. of America, 59 Conn.App. 47, 52 (2000).
Simply stated, Section 38a-336 requires all motor vehicle liability policies include "uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage."
Section 38a-363(d) defines who is the "owner of a policy." The provision of that section states that "owner of a private passenger motor vehicle means the person who owns the legal title thereto, except where the motor vehicle is the subject of a security agreement or lease with option to purchase with the debtor or lessee having the right to possession, in which event the owner means the debtor or lessee."
The defendants rely on the Connecticut Appellate Court's decision of Platcow v. Yasuda Fire and Marine Ins. Co., supra, 59 Conn.App. 47 to support their Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts in Platcow are that the plaintiff leased a car from Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (Nissan). The lease provided for the lessee's possession of the vehicle, a three-year period and an option to purchase the vehicle. In addition, the lease required the lessee to purchase liability coverage in certain specified amounts, which condition the plaintiff (lessee) had complied with. Nissan, as the lessor of the vehicle, obtained a liability insurance policy from Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (Yasuda). While the plaintiff's policy and the Yasuda policy were both in effect, the plaintiff was killed in an accident resulting from the negligence of an uninsured driver. The plaintiff's own policy paid its limits in accordance with the terms of that policy which was $100,000. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Nissan and Yasuda Insurance claiming that the Yasuda policy should also provide uninsured motorist benefits to the extent of that policy. The court in Yasuda found for the defendants. The court found the "owner" of the vehicle to be the lessee. The basis for the court's decision was that Nissan was not under any duty to obtain insurance under these circumstances, and that the Yasuda policy Nissan did purchase was not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage for a long-term lessee because neither Nissan nor Yasuda was an "owner."
At the crux of the court's decision was the court's interpretation of Section 38a-363 which defined the "owner" of a motor vehicle. The Platcow decision provides a straightforward reading of the statute. In Platcow, the owner was a lessee with a lease for a three-year term, including the right of possession and the option to purchase the vehicle.
The reasoning of Platcow cannot be applied to the facts as presented in this case. The owner of the vehicle in this case is Transportation General. They hold the legal title to the vehicle. There is no evidence suggesting that their vehicle is subject to a security agreement. The lease as presented by the defendants does not contain an option for the lessee to purchase the vehicle. In addition, the terms of the lease contain substantial differences. In Platcow, the lease clearly required the lessee to obtain insurance, both for himself and covering the lessor. In this case, the lease contains a similar requirement, however, the lessee has the option of obtaining that insurance directly from the lessor. Under the defendant's interpretation of that contract provision, if such an option is made, the lessee has in effect waived his right to uninsured motorist protection altogether. That result is directly contradictory to the expressed terms of the statute.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied.