COURT DECISIONS

Rough Notes, Aug 2007

Furthermore, the language of the certificate clearly disclaimed liability in the event notice was not mailed. According to the court, "Troublesome as it may be that Zurich permits its agents to issue certificates when it knows prior to the certificate's being issued that coverage was cancelled and lacks an identifiable procedure for notifying certificate holders that coverage has been cancelled, the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint do not state a cause of action against Zurich."

The judgment of the lower court in favor of Zurich was affirmed.

Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company vs. Anderson-No. 27470-Appellate Court of Connecticut-May 29, 2007-922 Atlantic Reporter 2d 236.

Insured challenges trampoline exclusion

In June of 1998, Jason, Brad and Rhonda Curtis purchased a homeowners insurance policy from National Mutual Insurance Company. The original term of the policy was from June 30, 1998, to June 30, 1999. After that, the Curtises renewed the policy on an annual basis.

The National Mutual policy was 32 pages long, consisting of 18 pages of "main policy" and 14 pages of "Supplemental Extensions." The "main policy" included exclusions to personal liability coverage. However, there was a supplemental extension exclusion that excluded coverage for medical payments to others "[a]rising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a trampoline."

In October 1998, National Mutual issued a new edition of the Supplemental Extensions form. At the anniversary date of the policy in June 1999, the Curtises received a renewal declaration sheet that designated this new edition as applicable to their renewed policy and extended the policy's term to June 30, 2000. Again, the trampoline exclusion was included at the bottom of this form. However, this new edition of the Supplemental Extensions form was never sent to the Curtises.

On June 6, 2000, Justin Beaulieu suffered a compound fracture of his left leg when he was jumping on the Curtises' trampoline during a graduation party for Jason Curtis. He filed suit against the Curtises. Later, he added National Mutual as a party to the lawsuit, seeking a declaration that the homeowners policy provided liability coverage for his injuries. National Mutual filed a counterclaim, asserting that coverage was excluded under the policy, and the Curtises answered National Mutual's complaint, asking the court to declare there was coverage under the policy. The trial court found that National Mutual owed the Curtises a duty to defend; National Mutual appealed.

On appeal, National Mutual asserted that the Curtises' homeowners policy was clear and unambiguous and that it was the Curtises' duty to acquaint themselves with the policy. According to National Mutual, if the Curtises did not familiarize themselves with the contents of their insurance policy, they could not complain. The Curtises, on the other hand, argued that the structure of the policy created ambiguity. According to the Curtises, the trampoline exclusion was added into the Supplemental Extensions section of the policy and placed in a section of the policy away from the other liability exclusions. In other words, the location of the trampoline exclusion was not conspicuous and caused an ambiguity in the policy.