See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn. App. 390 (2013). On June 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Connecticut denied certification for appeal. See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 309 Conn. 909 (2013). Attorney Zimmerman filed Bristol Heights' second federal action in this court on November 21, 2012. While Attorney Zimmerman was not herself involved in the prior litigation between the parties, in bringing the present case she consulted with Bristol Heights' counsel in the prior litigation.
Gabriel v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co ., 186 Conn. App. 163, 167, 199 A.3d 79 (2018), cert. denied, 331 Conn. 903, 201 A.3d 1023 (2019) ; see also Chicago Title Ins. Co . v. Bristol Heights Associates , LLC , 142 Conn. App. 390, 405, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). II
Chicago Title Ins. Co . v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC , 142 Conn. App. 390, 405–406, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). As discussed below, the policy contains provisions which require persons seeking coverage to cooperate with the insurer in its investigation of the claim and to submit to physical examinations by physicians it selected.
ct of insurance presents a question of law for the court ... It is the function of the court to construe the provisions of the contract of insurance ... The [i]nterpretation of an insurance policy ... involves a determination of the intent of the parties a expressed by the language of the policy ... [including] what coverage the ... [insured] expected to receive and what the "[insurer] was to provide, as disclosed by the provisions of the policy ... [A] contract of insurance must be viewed in its entirety, and the intent of the parties for entering it derived from the four corners of the policy ... [giving the] words ... [of the policy] their natural and ordinary meaning ... construing: any ambiguity in the terms ... in favor of the insured ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn.App. 390, 405-06, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). "Under the well established four corners doctrine, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify ... An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if at least one allegation of the complaint falls even possibly within the coverage."
As the defendant correctly notes, generally, an insured’s compliance with a cooperation provision (or a more specific examination under oath provision) in an insurance policy is a condition the breach of which discharges the insurer’s duty to pay out for covered claims; O’Leary v. Lumbermen ’s Mutual Casualty Co., 178 Conn. 32, 38, 420 A.2d 888 (1979); Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 116 Conn.App. 417, 432, 978 A.2d 83, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 908, 982 A.2d 1082 (2009); and provides the insurer an absolute defense to an action on the policy. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn.App. 390, 408, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). For the insurer’s duty to be discharged, however, the insured’s noncompliance must be substantial or material; a policy condition is not broken by a failure of the insured in an immaterial or unsubstantial matter.
As the defendant correctly notes, generally, an insured’s compliance with a cooperation provision (or a more specific examination under oath provision) in an insurance policy is a condition the breach of which discharges the insurer’s duty to pay out for covered claims; O’Leary v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 178 Conn. 32, 38, 420 A.2d 888 (1979); Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 116 Conn.App. 417, 432, 978 A.2d 83, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 908, 982 A.2d 1082 (2009); and provides the insurer an absolute defense to an action on the policy. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn.App. 390, 408, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). For the insurer’s duty to be discharged, however, the insured’s noncompliance must be substantial or material; a policy condition is not broken by a failure of the insured in an immaterial or unsubstantial matter.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn.App. 390, 405-06, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). " Under the well established four corners doctrine, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify . . . An insurer's duty to defend is triggered if at least one allegation of the complaint falls even possibly within the coverage."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, LLC, 142 Conn.App. 390, 405-06, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013). As discussed below, the policy contains provisions which required persons seeking coverage to cooperate with the insurer in its investigation of the claim and to submit to physical examinations by physicians it selected.
Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 116 Conn.App. 417, 433, 978 A.2d 83, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 908, 982 A.2d 1082 (2009). See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bristol Heights Associates, 142 Conn.App. 390, 70 A.3d 74, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 909, 68 A.3d 662 (2013) (insured's failure to disclose information breached cooperation clause when insured failed to provide information requested by insurer). " Generally, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, when an insured fails to comply with the insurance policy provisions . . . the breach generally results in the forfeiture of coverage, thereby relieving the insurer of its liability to pay, and provides the insurer an absolute defense to an action on the policy."