DocketNumber: No. X05 CV 98-0168089 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3036
Judges: ROGERS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/11/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits, and other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book §
Issues related to the content of insurance policies are appropriate for summary judgment review. "The question of whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured is purely a question of law." Witt v. St. Vincent'sMedical Center,
On February 16, 1998, Mark Stoleson was employed by J M, Inc., d/b/a/ Bernardo's Auto Body ("JM") as an automobile mechanic. On that date John Keller's son brought his father's vehicle to JM for repairs. At that time, Stoleson maintained an automobile insurance policy with Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, known as policy number 02120202-5. CT Page 3038
On February 16, 1998 after closing hours, and after he punched out from work, Stoleson left the premises of JM driving the Keller vehicle. After leaving work, Stoleson drove the vehicle to the house of a friend and drank alcoholic beverages. Stoleson and his friend then left the house and Stoleson drove them to the Red Arrow, a bar in Milford, CT where they continued to drink. Stoleson and his friend then left the Red Arrow and while driving to find somewhere to eat were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle operated by Isco Davis. John Keller has submitted an affidavit that he did not have knowledge that Stoleson was operating his vehicle at the time of the accident and did not give Stoleson permission to drive the vehicle for recreational or social purposes. The parties opposing summary judgment have not submitted any evidence that Keller did have knowledge that Stoleson was going to be drinking and driving his vehicle after work hours.1
The relevant Progressive policy of insurance provides coverage to an insured, provided the insured is an "insured person" in accordance with the definition in the policy. An "insured person" is provided coverage if the vehicle used is a "covered vehicle" or if the operator of the vehicle is involved in an "accident arising out of the maintenance or use of any vehicle with the express or implied permission of the owner of the vehicle." Stoleson's policy with Progressive also states that, "Progressive" will pay damages, other than punitive, exemplary, or statutory multiple damages, for bodily injury for which an `insured person' becomes legally responsible because of an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a `covered vehicle.'" A "covered vehicle" is defined as "any vehicle shown on the Declarations Page; an additional vehicle or replacement vehicle on the date (the insured)becomes the owner." Id. (Emphasis added).
The Keller vehicle is not listed on the declaration page of Stoleson's Progressive policy which was in effect at the relevant time. It is undisputed Stoleson has never been the owner of the Keller vehicle. Therefore, as Stoleson did not insure and did not acquire ownership of the Keller vehicle, Progressive has no obligation to defend or indemnify Mark Stoleson on the grounds that he was driving a "covered vehicle" at the time of the February 16, 1998 motor vehicle accident.
The only other possible basis for insurance coverage under the Progressive policy would be if Stoleson has permission of the owner to operate the car. Keller has submitted evidence that he did not give Stoleson permission to drive the car. Specifically, John Keller did not give express or implied permission to Stoleson to operate his car after working hours, to go to a bar and then leave the bar and take the car to find a place to eat. On the other hand, there has been no evidence submitted by the parties opposing summary judgment that Stoleson had CT Page 3039 express or implied permission from the owner of the vehicle, John Keller, to use the vehicle.2 Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Stoleson did not have permission to be driving the owner's car at the time of the accident.
Therefore, Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is granted.
CHASE T. ROGERS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE