Paul Vitelli v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (2014)

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The defendant has moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff, Paul Vitelli, has already settled for his policy limits under his own uninsured motorist coverage.   As a result, the defendant claims that he cannot recover under his father's insurance policy with Allstate.   The court agrees, and grants the defendant's motion.

The undisputed facts are that on November 16, 2012, the plaintiff was operating his motorcycle in the Town of Orange, Connecticut, when an unidentified motorist traveling in the opposite direction crashed into him causing personal injuries.   The plaintiff then settled under his own insurance policy with Progressive under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy for $20,000.   The plaintiff is now claiming uninsured motorist coverage under his father's policy with Allstate, which coverage totals $50,000.   The plaintiff was living with his father at the time of the accident, so he is claiming coverage under the “ANY RESIDENT RELATIVE” provision of that policy.   General Statutes § 38a–336(d) provides that:

If any person insured for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is an occupant of an owned vehicle, the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage afforded by the policy covering the vehicle occupied at the time of the accident shall be the only uninsured and underinsured coverage available.

The Allstate policy provides that:

However, if the insured person was in, on, or getting into or out of a vehicle owned by that person which is insured for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, the only uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage available to the injured person will be that of the occupied vehicle.   (Emphasis added.)

The policy in question is unambiguous, and is consistent with General Statutes § 38a–336(d) and the common law.  (See Middlesex v. Quinn, 225 Conn. 257, 263 (1993);  “Because the defendant owns his own automobile, he is clearly not an ‘insured’ under the unambiguous definition of an insured under the policy.”)   Contrary to the claims of the plaintiff, the policy at issue is unambiguous, and not contradicted by any other portions of the policy.   It is undisputed that the plaintiff was driving a motorcycle that he owned, and that was insured by Progressive.   Under the policy in question and General Statutes § 38a–336(d), the plaintiff cannot recover.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Frechette, J.

Frechette, Matthew E., J.