Alexander S. Langer v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This two-count complaint alleges causes of action against the defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and bad faith stemming from its refusal to pay the claim that plaintiff made against a policy of insurance that the defendant issued to him.   The plaintiff's claim concerns a loss that he contends is covered by the policy as the result of a “theft” that occurred on or about August 3, 2008.

On July 15, 2010, the defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on both counts of the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that there is no insurance coverage or bad faith where an insurance company denies a claim of alleged “theft” based on a named insured transporting her items from one place to another.

The following are the undisputed facts of the case.   In September of 2007, the defendant issued a tenants property insurance policy to the plaintiff and his ex-wife, Gyongi Langer.   In Section I of the policy, in the portion entitled “Perils Insured Against,” subsection 9(a) provides that it insures against losses due to “[t]heft, included attempted theft and loss of property from a known place when it is likely that the property has been stolen.”   It further provides, however, that “[t]his peril does not include loss caused by theft ․ [c]ommitted by an ‘insured’ ․” According to the policy's declarations page, both the plaintiff and Gyongi Langer are named as insured's and the policy applied to the residence that they shared.   Gyongi Langer's daughter also lived at the residence.   The policy also contains an exclusion for “Intentional Loss.” In Section 1, in the portion entitled “Exclusions,” subsection 8(a) excludes from coverage “any loss arising out of any act committed ․ [b]y or at the direction of an ‘insured’ ․ and [w]ith the intent to cause a loss.”

In April of 2008, a protective order was issued against the plaintiff which prevented him from entering their shared residence at 37 Wakelee Avenue, Shelton, or removing any items from the residence, apart from the clothing he obtained when he went there with a police escort in June 2008.   In July or August 2008, Gyongi Langer left the residence to live elsewhere.   At that time, she and/or other individuals, including her friends and her daughter, moved items from that residence to her new residence.   In May 2009, ten months after the items were removed, the plaintiff reported this alleged theft to the defendant and made a claim under the policy which was denied.

“An insurance policy is to be interpreted by the same general rules that govern the construction of any written contract ․ In accordance with those principles, [t]he determinative question is the intent of the parties, that is, what coverage the ․ [insured] expected to receive and what the [insurer] was to provide, as disclosed by the provisions of the policy ․ If the terms of the policy are clear and unambiguous, then the language, from which the intention of the parties is to be deduced, must be accorded its natural and ordinary meaning.”  Connecticut Medical Insurance Co. v. Kulikowski, 286 Conn. 1, 5, 942 A.2d 334 (2008).

Based on the undisputed facts of the case, it is concluded that there exist no material issues of fact as to whether Gyongi Langer, who was a named insured, caused the allegedly stolen items to be transported away from the residence that she shared with the plaintiff.   The evidence submitted by the parties demonstrates that the plaintiff's loss was the result of either the direct conduct of Gyongi Langer, or of her daughter and her friends on Gyongi Langer's behalf and at her direction.   Any such loss might be the subject of a domestic relations dispute but is not covered by the policy at issue, which explicitly excludes coverage for a “theft” perpetrated by, or at the direction of, a named insured.

Motion for summary judgment granted.

Wagner, J., JTR

Wagner, Jerry, J.T.R.