Opinion
NNHCV166060829
01-30-2018
Daniel RUSSBACH v. Marisol YANEZ-VENTURA et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
OZALIS, J.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties in this action are the plaintiff, Daniel Russbach, and the defendants Marisol Yanez-Ventura, United Services Automobile Association (UAA) and WESCO Insurance Company (WESCO). This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2015, wherein the plaintiff suffered serious injuries. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was operating a 2012 Ford that was owned by West Shore Motors (West Shore). The 2012 Ford was insured by the defendant WESCO.
On March 7, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant WESCO, seeking to recover uninsured motorist benefits (UM/UIM). The plaintiff claims that the limit for UM/UIM coverage through West Shore’s policy is $1,000,000. The defendant WESCO contends that the limit for UM/UIM claims is only $100,000. The defendant WESCO claims that the UM/UIM limit is lower than the $1,000,000 liability limit in the policy, because a valid Waiver Form was obtained from its named insured West Shore to lower the UM/UIM limit. The defendant claims it properly lowered the UM/UIM limit based on the insured’s informed consent.
Trial was held in this matter on October 19, 2017. At trial the plaintiff contended that the Waiver Form at issue did not comply with the requirements of General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2) and that the insured did not make a knowing and informed decision to reduce the UM/UIM motorist coverage to $100,000 from the $1,000,000 bodily injury liability coverage. The defendant WESCO at trial contended that the named insured West Shore knowingly executed the statutory Waiver Form under General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2), thereby lowering the UM/UIM policy limits to $100,000.
Post-trial briefs were filed on December 12, 2017 and December 19, 2017.
II.
THE EVIDENCE
The court finds the following facts. Jason Blake owned West Shore, which was a used car dealership, repair and towing center. West Shore was not in the business of loaning cars, but did so from time to time. In the fall of 2015, West Shore had between ten and twenty vehicles that it owned for sale and/or lease. West Shore purchased a commercial insurance policy for its business and such policy was entitled " Commercial Package Policy." Blake was the person responsible for purchasing insurance for West Shore in 2015. Blake testified credibly that he consulted with an insurance professional to provide him advice, which he considered in determining the scope of insurance coverage for the business. Blake wanted low cost insurance and the lowest possible UM/UIM coverage that was allowed and made the decision to obtain less UM/UIM coverage than the bodily liability limits. Blake credibly testified at trial that he received the full Waiver Form which his insurance agent asked him to review, reviewed it, knowingly approved his selection and sent it back to the agent. (Trial Tr. P. 8.; Trial Ex. B.) Blake testified credibly that he had his own personal automobile insurance policy and that the commercial policy for West Shore was not for his personal use. The actual policy entitled " Commercial Package Policy," does not refer to any personal automobile insurance protection for Blake. The Waiver Form lists $100,000 in UM/UIM coverage.
III.
DISCUSSION
Connecticut requires drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage with limits equal to limits for bodily injury coverage, absent waiver. General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2) provides, in relevant part: " Notwithstanding any provision of this section, each automobile liability insurance policy issued or renewed on and after January 1, 1994, shall provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with limits for bodily injury and death equal to those purchased to protect against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law unless any named insured requests in writing a lesser amount, but not less than the limits specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112 ... No such written request for a lesser amount shall be effective unless any named insured has signed an informed consent form that shall contain: (A) An explanation of uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance approved by the commissioner; (B) a list of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage options available from the insurer; and C) the premium cost for each of the coverage options available from the insurer."
Connecticut law, however, is clear that strict compliance with § 38a-336(a)(2) is not required when the policy in question is a commercial fleet policy. In McDonald v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 79 Conn.App. 800, 807, 831 A.2d 310, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 929, 837 A.2d 802 (2003), the Appellate Court held that [the] " the purpose of § 38a-336(a)(2), including the provision requiring that insurers inform consumers of the premium cost for each of the underinsured motorists coverage options available, is to facilitate consumers’ decision-making process and to ensure that they give informed consent to reduced coverage. We do not believe that a company such as Cumberland Farms, Inc., which insures a fleet of vehicles to carry on a large commercial enterprise, falls within the class of consumers that the legislature sought to protect when it mandated the disclosure of premium costs under § 38a-336(a)(2). Consequently, the fact that the informed consent form in the present case did not contain a statement of premium costs does not defeat the election by Cumberland Farms, Inc. to reduce its underinsured motorists coverage limits to $20,000."
Similarly, our Supreme Court held in Frantz v. United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., 245 Conn. 727, 739, 714 A.2d 1222 (1998), that " [a]lthough a corporation like Fleet Leasing may be considered a ‘consumer’ of insurance in the broadest sense of the word, we do not believe that a company that, like Fleet Leasing, is covered under a commercial fleet policy, falls within the class of consumers that the legislature sought to protect in requiring the signature of all named insureds under § 38-336(a)(2). Fleet Leasing, like many other large corporations covered under commercial fleet policies, has departments that specialize in legal and insurance matters. It is highly likely, therefore, that the Fleet Leasing personnel who negotiated the insurance provisions of the lease contract with General Dynamics were fully aware of the relative cost of uninsured motorist coverage and the implication of their decision." In Frantz, the Supreme Court further held that a fleet insurance policy is an insurance policy covering a number of vehicles owned by a business, governmental entity or an institution. Id., 729 n.3.
In this case, Blake, on behalf of West Shore, procured a commercial fleet automobile insurance policy for the multiple cars owned by it. Consequently, the fact that the Waiver Form in the present case did not contain a statement of premium costs does not defeat the election by West Shore to reduce its UM/UIM motorist coverage limits to $100,000. This court further finds Blake’s testimony to be credible as to the procurement of this commercial automobile insurance policy and his desire to have the lowest possible UM/UIM coverage for such vehicles. Blake was credible as to his review and understanding of the Waiver Form and his knowing selection of the lower $100,000 UM/UIM coverage.
" Based on the foregoing, this court finds that the named insured, West Shore, knowingly made an informed decision to reduce the UM/UIM coverage to $100,000 from the $1,000,000 bodily injury liability coverage and that the named insured’s UM/UIM coverage was properly reduced to $100,000.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this court finds that the named insured, West Shore’s, UM/UIM coverage is $100,000.