Opinion
No. CV 03 0482001
February 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CROSS MOTIONS TO VACATE AND CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
INTRODUCTION
In this action the plaintiff and the defendant dispute whether the findings of an arbitration panel denying underinsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff are legally correct.
FACTS
The facts regarding this matter are not in dispute. On July 8, 1993, the plaintiff Cheryl Gombard was operating a 1987 Chevy Blazer when she was involved in a car accident in which her car was struck from the rear by a car driven by Shirley LeMarco. The plaintiff's personal injury claim against LeMarco was settled for $40,000, the limits of LeMarco's liability insurance coverage. The plaintiff and her husband, who owned three ordinary street vehicles of which the Chevy Blazer was one, had insured those vehicles with Liberty Mutual for $500,000 of liability coverage, but they had elected to decrease their uninsured motorist coverage to the statutory minimum of $20,000 per individual, $40,000 per accident. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-112(a).
The plaintiff's husband also owned a 1929 Ford Model A. That vehicle was insured by a separate policy of insurance through Zurich Insurance Company, the defendant here, entitled "Antique and Classic Auto Policy." In that policy, an "antique vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle twenty-five years or more of age, that is maintained solely for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades or other functions of public interest; it is not used primarily for the transportation of persons or goods." Exhibit 1, page 1 of 9.
In the section of the policy entitled Insuring Agreement, the defendant agrees to pay damages "for bodily injury or property damage for which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an Auto accident involving your covered auto." Id., p. 1 of 9. An "insured" is defined as "you or any family member for the ownership, maintenance or use of your covered auto." Id., p. 2 of 9. "Covered auto" means only the "antique vehicle." More specifically, under the Exclusions portion of the policy, it states: "B. We do not provide coverage for any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any vehicle other than your covered auto." Exhibit 1, p. 2 of 9.
As to uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits, the Zurich policy states:
We will pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally liable to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury:
1. Sustained by an insured while occupying your covered auto, and
2. Caused by an accident.
Id., p. 4 of 9.
The plaintiff filed a claim under the Zurich policy to collect underinsured motorist benefits for the 1993 accident. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff, because the accident in which she was involved occurred while she was using the Chevy Blazer, not the Model A. The plaintiff invoked the arbitration clause of the Zurich policy and the dispute was submitted to a panel of three arbitrators. By a vote of 2-1, the panel decided that the Zurich policy did not provide coverage to the plaintiff for the subject accident. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate, Correct or Modify Award and the defendant filed a Motion to Confirm Award. For reasons stated herein, the former motion is denied and the later motion is granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although neither side has addressed the issue of the standard or scope of the court's review of this arbitration in the memoranda of law, it is clear that since the issue is one of coverage, the scope of review is de novo. American Universal Insurance Co. v. DelGreco, 205 Conn. 178, 530 A.2d 171 (1987). In DelGreco, the Supreme Court held that "where judicial review of compulsory arbitration proceedings required by [§ 38a-336 (formerly 38-175c(a)(1)] is undertaken under General Statutes § 52-418, the reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the interpretation and application of the law by the arbitrators." American Universal Insurance Co. v. DelGreco, supra, 191.
THE ARBITRATION AWARD
The arbitration award in this case sets forth a concise and, in the court's view, correct statement of the law as it relates to provision of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in Connecticut. It is not a violation of the insurance laws or of public policy for an insurer to limit liability coverage to a particular vehicle. Berk and Jainchill, Connecticut Law of Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage, Sec. 2.4.1. pp. 124-25 (2d Ed. 1999). However there is a requirement that the class of insureds for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits must be at least coextensive with the class of insureds for liability purposes. Middlesex Insurance Co. v. Quinn, 225 Conn. 257, 266 (1993). Put another way, the law does no more than impose a duty on an insurer to extend uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to the same class of individuals to whom liability coverage is extended under the same policy. See Platcow v. Yasuda Fire Marine Insurance Co. of America, 59 Conn.App. 47, 56 n. 16 (2000).
In limiting its antique car coverage only to accidents involving the antique car, Zurich violated no Connecticut statute or regulation. Rather, since the plaintiff could not have invoked the Zurich liability coverage for an accident involving the Chevy Blazer, she cannot invoke the policy's uninsured/underinsured coverage for the Chevy Blazer accident.
The majority of the arbitration panel correctly construed the insurance contract at issue and correctly interpreted the current statutory and regulatory insurance scheme in holding that the policy at issue provided no additional coverage to the plaintiff for the 1993 accident.
Accordingly the plaintiff's Application to Vacate the Award is denied and the defendant's Application to Confirm the Award is granted.
Patty Jenkins Pittman, Judge