Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Second Opinions

Federal Judiciary

: Second Opinions

More certified questions. This time the questions are being certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The case, Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, involves an insurance company's disclaimer of liability purportedly because the accident at issue did not occur in an "insured location." The questions are:

1. With respect to a claim for negligent entrustment under a liability policy that excludes coverage for "[a]rising out of . . . [t]he entrustment by an insured" "to any person""of a motor vehicle" other than "[a] motorized land conveyance designed for recreational use off public roads, not subject to motor vehicle registration and . . . [o]wned by an insured and on an insured location," is the insured location
(a) the place where the entrustment of the vehicle took place; or
(b) the place where the vehicle is garaged; or
(c) the place where the accident occurred?

2. In the absence of a policy definition of "premises," should a private road located within a residential development owned by insured's homeowners association be considered "premises used . . . in connection with a [residence] premises" under the terms of a homeowner's insurance policy if the portion of the road where the liability arose is not regularly used by the insured, although other portions of the road are so used?

3. Under Connecticut law, where a liability insurance policy requires an insured to give notice of a covered claim "as soon as practical," do social interactions between the insured and the claimant making no reference to an accident claim justify a delay in giving notice of a potential claim to the insured?

The decision in which the Court certified these questions can be found here.

Full post as published by Second Opinions on May 24, 2010 (boomark / email).