DocketNumber: No. CV95-0251009
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10041
Judges: DiPENTIMA, J.
Filed Date: 11/20/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Procedural and Factual Background
The plaintiff brought this action for injuries she received arising out of a November 27, 1993, automobile accident with an uninsured driver, Luis Vasquez, who was driving an automobile owned by Joseph Garner. Joseph Garner held a policy with Peerless Insurance with liability coverage of $20,000. On January 25, 1995, the plaintiff settled her claim against Vasquez and Garner for the $20,000 Peerless policy limits and released both individuals from further liability. On November 25, 1995, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, who is her insurer under an automobile liability policy in effect at the time of the accident to recover underinsured benefits. In one of its special defenses the defendant alleges the plaintiff's failure to comply with a provision of coverage.
The relevant provision in the subject policy reads as CT Page 10042 follows:
EXCLUSIONS
A. We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for "bodily injury" sustained by any person:
2. If that person or the legal representative settles the "bodily injury" claim without our consent.
The defendant asserts and the plaintiff does not contest that the plaintiff did not obtain the consent of the defendant before settling for the $20,000 with Vasquez and Garner.
Discussion
The defendant argues that as a matter of law it is entitled to judgment in its favor 1) because the plaintiff did not comply with the consent to settle provision and 2) because that noncompliance prejudiced the defendant. The issue of the provision's validity was not raised by the plaintiff in its opposition papers, so that the court need not address it in this motion.1 The plaintiff does argue that the defendant has waived the need for compliance with the provision. As to the claim of prejudice, the defendant relies upon Westcester FireIns. Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
"Practice Book § 384 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any 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. . . ." (Citation omitted.) Doty v. Mucci,
The waiver issue raised by the plaintiff arises from the events prior to the initiation of this suit. By affidavit and document, the plaintiff proffers evidence that the defendant's negotiations with the plaintiff after the Vasquez/Garner settlement amounted to an implied waiver of the plaintiff's noncompliance with the consent to settle provision. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. The waiver does not have to be express, but "may consist of acts or conduct from which waiver may be implied". Andover v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.,
At oral argument the defendant suggested that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's attorney should be stricken in light of Rule 3.7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the defendant has not represented that the facts contained in the affidavit are contested. See (a)(1) of Rule 3.7. In light of the content of the affidavit and posture of the case, the court will consider the affidavit. See Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corporation,
While the court has found a genuine issue as to a material fact, it does not decide it. McColl v. Pataky,
The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
DiPentima, J.