DocketNumber: No. CV 02-00816516
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16497, 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 563
Judges: BOOTH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/19/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Nationwide cites as its authority for the right to be joined Section
"Any person may be made a defendant who has or claims to have an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or when it is necessary, for a complete determination or settlement of any questions involved therein, to make a party."
Nationwide also cites the recent Supreme Court holding in DaCruz v.State Farm Fire Casualty Co.,
The plaintiffs complain that the defendant Gaines was negligent on or about December 4, 2000. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's negligence with a road flare which he dropped or threw on the road to be caused its barn building damaged by fire. The defendant Gaines has filed an answer denying any liability for the fire.
Nationwide states in its motion that Nationwide is providing Gaines with a legal defense and providing him with an attorney to defend the action under a reservation of rights. Nationwide wants to become a defendant in the action because it claims that Gaines has no coverage under his parents' homeowner's insurance policy.
Recently, in DaCruz v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co.,
On January 14, 1994 the plaintiff DaCruz, then a minor, was brutally beaten by a classmate, Michael Bullock, while attending Amity Regional High School in Orange. On October 4, 1995 the plaintiff commenced an action DaCruz v. Amity High School School District, Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, docket no. 00-52333-S (October 4, 1995). That action sought compensation for his injuries and alleged that Bullock intentionally and negligently had caused his injuries. State Farm retained an attorney to represent Bullock in the DaCruz action under a reservation of rights.
On April 25, 1996 State Farm brought an action for declaratory judgment to determine if it had a duty to defend or to indemnify the Bullocks against the plaintiffs' underlying claim under the terms of its homeowner's insurance contract with Curtis Bullock, Michael's father. On May 30, 1997, the court (Blue, J) rendered judgment declaring that State Farm did not have a duty to defend any of the Bullocks against the plaintiffs claim. The court declined, however, to render judgment declaring that State Farm did not have a duty to indemnify Bullock or his parents. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Following Judge Blue's ruling, the attorney retained by State Farm in the DaCruz action withdrew his appearance on the basis of Judge Blue's decision. The Trial Court granted the plaintiff's motion for default and thereafter at a hearing in damages concluded that Bullock and his parents were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff. The court conducting the hearing in damages signed a judgment which was prepared by the plaintiff in which it concluded that Bullock had acted intentionally and negligently. No appeal was taken.
On April 26, 1999, the plaintiffs seeking to have the judgment satisfied in his favor, commenced an action against State Farm pursuant to Section
An examination of Judge Blue's memorandum in State Farm Fire CT Page 16499Casualty v. Bullock,
"State Farm seeks a declaratory judgment both as its duty to indemnify and its duty to defend. The Superior Court's ability to grant a declaratory judgment as to the duty to indemnify is however significantly restricted by Supreme Court precedent. In Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Williamson,
153 Conn. 345 ,216 A.2d 635 (1996) the Supreme Court held that the statute now codified as Connecticut General Statute §38a-321 `furnishes a plain and simple method for the determination of the liability of the plaintiff to respond to a judgment obtained [in the pending action]'153 Conn. at 349 . Given this fact, "the only proper exercise of discretion would be to leave the plaintiff to seek redress in a defense to the action under the statute should the occasion for that arise." Id. at 350."
Judge Blue goes on to point out that while there may be some tension between Williamson and subsequent Supreme Court precedent, the court has not overruled Williamson. He concludes that the motion for summary judgment must be denied insofar as it seeks a declaratory judgment as to the duty to indemnify.
Nationwide, in its motion to be made a party defendant states:
"Nationwide must intervene in this case to assert its coverage position and obtain a judicial determination that there is no duty to indemnify the defendant or else it will be bound by any judgment rendered in the case."
Nationwide is attempting to do precisely what the Supreme Court in Williamson and the Trial Court in DaCruz said an insurance company could not do. Indeed, the Appellate Court in DaCruz wrote as follows:
"One of the purposes of Section
DaCruz, supra at 513-514.
In short, Section
The court concludes that Nationwide does not have the right in this action to argue for a declaratory determination concerning indemnity. Accordingly, its intervention in the current action would serve no purpose. The motion for joinder as a defendant is denied.
BY THE COURT
___________________ CT Page 16501 Kevin E. Booth, J.