State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Shameeka Grose (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff insurance company seeks to recover as monetary damages sums that it paid to its insured, under the uninsured motorist provisions of a policy of insurance, caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle owned by the defendant.   The plaintiff's insured, Jessica Torres, pulled out from a parking space and saw another vehicle approaching her in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed.   The insured pulled to the right as far as she could in view of the other cars parked along the side of the road.   The approaching vehicle left its lane of travel and struck the insured's vehicle while she was stopped.

The plaintiff makes a claim for approximately $22,208.00 covering the personal injury claims paid to the insured, property damage to the vehicle she was operating and car rental.   The defendant agrees that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff was obligated to pay those sums under its policy of insurance and that the operator of the plaintiff's vehicle was responsible for causing those damages.

The only evidence as to the identity of the operator of the other vehicle came from the insured.   She testified that after the accident she spoke briefly with that operator and that he then fled the scene.   The operator was therefore not identified.

At the beginning of the evidentiary trial, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint so as to allege a claim of negligence entrustment of the motor vehicle by the defendant to the operator.   That motion was denied by the court on the grounds that it raised new factual issues that would have to be addressed by the defendant.

The claim of the plaintiff, as asserted in the complaint and the assertion for the claimed liability at trial, is based upon the existence of the family car doctrine.   Under General Statutes § 52-182 in order for the family car doctrine to apply there must be “proof that the operator of a motor vehicle ․ was the husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter of the owner.”   There was no evidence as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle which struck the insured's vehicle and no evidence that the operator was the husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter, of the defendant.   Accordingly, the doctrine of family car doctrine does not apply.

Judgment may enter in favor of the defendant.¹

RUSH, J.T.R.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. While there was no evidence presented as to the relationship between the owner and operator, opening statements by the respective attorneys indicated that the vehicle had been placed in storage at a location other than the defendant's home..  FN1. While there was no evidence presented as to the relationship between the owner and operator, opening statements by the respective attorneys indicated that the vehicle had been placed in storage at a location other than the defendant's home.

Rush, William B., J.T.R.