United States Second Circuit

Following receipt of answers to certified questions to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, district court's judgment that none of three separate liability insurance policies owned by the plaintiffs covered their alleged liability to a third-party child is affirmed, where: 1) the homeowners' policy did not provide coverage because the accident did not occur at an "insured location"; 2) plaintiffs failed to list the ATV in the declarations to the umbrella policy that unambiguously required listing in order to be covered; 3) defendant's umbrella policy change was valid; 4) for the same reasons, there was no coverage under the excess liability policy; 5) plaintiffs' claims for unfair trade practices, bad faith, and negligence fail as a matter of law in light of the foregoing determinations and their motion to amend the same is not timely; and 6) plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were not preserved for review.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/07/2012
• Published 11/07/2012

Judges

• VITALIANO

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel