Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Michael R. Monaco et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (No. 106)

The plaintiff insurance company (“Progressive”) has commenced this declaratory judgment action against Michael Monaco, alleging that it has no duty to defend or indemnify him in an underlying action, Brochu v. Monaco, No. CV 10–6008484.   On June 9, 2011, Progressive filed the Motion for Summary Judgment now before the court.   The motion was argued on August 15, 2011.   For the reasons briefly stated below, the motion must be denied.

It is well established that, “The obligation of the insurer to defend does not depend on whether the injured party will successfully maintain a cause of action against the insured but on whether he has, in his complaint, stated facts which bring the injury within the coverage.”  Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 274 Conn. 457, 463, 876 A.2d 1139 (2005) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).   The facts stated in the complaint of Brochu v. Monaco unquestionably fall into this category.   The complaint proceeds on the sole theory of negligence and states that the defendant in that action was injured in an automobile accident caused by Monaco's negligence.

Progressive relies on the fact that Monaco subsequently pleaded guilty to assault in the incident in question and admitted that he drove his car with assaultive intent.  Hartford Casualty reminds us, however, that, “[I]t is the claim which determines the insurer's duty to defend;  and it is irrelevant that the insurer may get information from the insured, or from anyone else, which indicates, or even demonstrates, that the injury is not in fact covered.”  274 Conn. at 464 (emphasis added;  internal quotation marks and citations omitted).  Wilderman v. Powers, 110 Conn.App. 819, 956 A.2d 613 (2008), does not purport to change this well-settled analysis, and the court will not construe it as having done so.   The factual allegations in the underlying complaint firmly establish Progressive's duty to defend.

The plaintiff in the underlying action did not participate in the argument of this motion.   The facts of that case have yet to be presented.   While—without predeciding an evidentiary issue in that case—Monaco's guilty plea may well be treated as an evidentiary admission by him, it does not necessarily follow that his plea will have a preclusive effect on the plaintiff in the underlying action.   Other evidence of negligence may well be submitted.   All of this must be sorted out by the trial court in the underlying action.   Under these circumstances, a ruling at this time on Progressive's duty to indemnify would be premature.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.

Jon C. Blue

Judge of the Superior Court

Blue, Jon C., J.