Opinion
(SC 16060)
Argued September 30, 1999
Officially released October 19, 1999
Action to recover damages for breach of an insurance agency agreement and negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at New Britain, and tried to the jury before Pittman, J.; verdict and judgment in part for the plaintiff, from which the plaintiff appealed and the defendant cross appealed to the Appellate Court, Foti, Lavery and Landau, Js., which reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial and dismissed the defendant's cross appeal; on remand, the trial court, Handy, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability and the matter was tried to the jury before Graham, J., on the issue of damages; directed verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, O'Connell, C. J., and Lavery and Schaller, Js., which reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.
William F. Corrigan, with whom, on the brief, was Elizabeth A. Fitzsimmons, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Daniel P. Scapellati, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Sweeney, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
The plaintiff, General Accident Insurance Company of America, brought this action against the defendant insurance agent, Powers, Bolles, Houlihan and Hartline, Inc., alleging that the defendant failed to obtain a written request from an insured for uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage in an amount less than the liability coverage. Upon concluding that the insurance application form, which was signed by the insured, did not satisfy the writing requirement of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c, now General Statutes § 38a-336, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed claiming that "the trial court improperly (1) concluded that its insurance application was deficient as a matter of law for the purpose of electing a lesser amount of uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage, and (2) failed to hold that the proper measure of damages was the difference between the premium that was actually charged to the policyholder for the coverage, and the premium that would have been charged for the higher amount of coverage." General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan Hartline, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 701, 702, 719 A.2d 77 (1998). The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that, on the basis of the plain language of the statute, the application satisfied the statutory writing requirement. Id., 715. We granted certification limited to the following issue: "Did the application for automobile insurance with liability limits higher than the uninsured-underinsured motorist limits constitute a written rejection of the right to uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage equal to the amount of liability coverage?" General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan Hartline, Inc., 247 Conn. 954-55, 723 A.2d 810 (1999).
General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c (a)(2) provides in relevant part: "Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, every such policy issued or renewed on and after July 1, 1984, shall provide uninsured motorist coverage with limits for bodily injury and death equal to those purchased to protect against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law unless the insured requests in writing a lesser amount, but not less than the limits specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112. . . ."
In 1991, § 38-175c (a)(2) was transferred without change to General Statutes § 38a-336 (a)(2). Subsequently, in 1993, § 38a-336 (a)(2) was amended to require a specific notice to the insured regarding the election of a lesser amount of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 38a-336 (a)(2).
On the basis of its resolution of the first issue, the Appellate Court found it unnecessary to resolve the second issue on appeal. General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan Hartline, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 701, 702 n. 1, 719 A.2d 77 (1998).
Having reviewed the briefs, the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. In its thorough and thoughtful opinion, the Appellate Court properly resolved the issue on which we granted certification.