Summary
In Broderick, the Appellate Court concluded that with respect to a business auto policy which was in effect on April 22, 1989, each of two vehicles had a $500,000 underinsured motorist limit and a separate premium of $29 per vehicle for that coverage.
Summary of this case from Transamerica Insurance Co. v. PanzaOpinion
(9749)
The plaintiff executrix, who had exhausted the limits of liability under all bodily injury and liability bonds and applicable insurance policies on behalf of her decedent, D, sought to recover damages under the under insured motorist coverage of a policy the defendant had issued to D's employer, N Co. D was operating an automobile owned by N Co. at the time of the accident that caused his death and was an insured for purposes of N Co.'s insurance policy. That policy provided uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $500,000 for each of two automobiles separately described in the policy's schedule of coverage. The plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to recover damages in excess of $1,000,000 and sought to stack the underinsured coverages on N Co.'s automobiles. The trial court reserved for the advice of this court the question of law regarding the stacking of underinsured motorist coverage in N Co.'s business automobile policy. Held that the underinsured motorist coverage in question could not be stacked, this court having concluded that the reasonable expectations of the parties based on the premium cost did not include the amount of coverage stacking would provide.
Argued June 3, 1991
Decision released September 10, 1991
Action for a declaratory judgment to determine the defendant's liability pursuant to the underinsured motorists provisions of a certain automobile insurance policy it had issued, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the court, Moraghan, J., pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, reserved a question of law for the advice of this court.
T. Stevens Bliss, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Timothy F. Woodbridge, for the appellee (defendant).
Pursuant to General Statutes 52-235 (a), the trial court reserved a question of law with the consent of both parties. The sole issue before us is whether the underinsured motorists coverage in the business automobile policy that was issued by the defendant to the employer of the plaintiff's decedent may be stacked.
The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff's decedent died from injuries suffered in an automobile accident on April 22, 1989, in New Fairfield, as the result of the negligence of an underinsured motorist. At the time of the accident, the decedent was operating an automobile that was owned by his employer, New Milford Bank and Trust Company, and, as the occupant of the automobile, was an insured for purposes of the underinsured motorists coverage of his employer's business automobile liability policy. The plaintiff recovered the sum of $20,000, exhausting the limits of liability under all bodily injury and liability bonds and applicable insurance policies.
The defendant's automobile liability insurance policy held by New Milford Bank and Trust Company provided uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage in the amount of $500,000 for each of two automobiles separately described in the "Schedule of Covered Autos." A separate premium of $29 per vehicle was paid for uninsured motorists coverage.
A fleet policy is "any insurance policy covering a number of vehicles owned by a business, a governmental entity, or an institution." Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., 213 Conn. 525, 530, 569 A.2d 541 (1990). Although stacking has been applied to a variety of circumstances; see id., 528; it has not been extended to business automobile liability policies that constitute fleet insurance contracts. Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646, 669, 591 A.2d 101 (1991); Wilson v. Security Ins. Co., 213 Conn. 532, 535, 569 A.2d 40, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 52, 112 L.Ed.2d 28 (1990); Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra.
Although the plaintiff agrees that the policy involved is a business automobile liability policy, she argues that this policy is not a fleet policy because it affords coverage for only two cars. We conclude that the outcome of this case does not turn on the specific number of vehicles insured, but, rather, is controlled by the line of cases that preclude stacking of fleet insurance policies as expressed in Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, and as reiterated recently in Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., supra.
The rationale precluding the stacking of fleet insurance policies "is based on the `objectively reasonable expectation[s] of the parties' to the insurance policy. Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 530." Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., supra, 670. In determining the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court does not view the particular insured and the vehicle involved in isolation, "but must hypothesize the total amount of coverage necessitated by the plaintiff's claim of stacking." Id. Under the plaintiff's claim, therefore, we must hypothesize that each covered vehicle would be afforded the same coverage. Id. Thus, if both covered vehicles were on the road simultaneously the total available coverage if stacking were allowed would be $1,000,000 for each vehicle, or $2,000,000, at a premium cost of $58. We conclude that such an expectation is unreasonable. See id., 670-71; Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 531.