DocketNumber: No. CV99-0267367-S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8336
Judges: GILARDI, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/9/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because General Statutes §
The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff argues that he is entitled to coverage under his father's insurance policy because the insurance policy issued by the defendant provides broader coverage than General Statutes §
"Practice Book [§ 1749] 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. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law . . . and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Brackets in the original; internal quotation marks omitted.)Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co.,
After recovering the limits of the liability insurance policy from the CT Page 8337 third-party operator, the plaintiff has now filed a claim for underinsured motorist coverage under his father's automobile liability insurance policy. Within the policy, there are various exclusions with respect to underinsured motorist coverage when the claimant is operating a non-covered "vehicle." There is no question that if the plaintiff was found to be operating a non-covered "vehicle," then the specific exclusions claimed by the defendant would prohibit recovery.
In the Progressive policy, the definition of a vehicle is a "land motor vehicle a) of the private passenger, pick up body or sedan delivery type; b) designed for operation principle upon public roads; c) with at least four (4) wheels; and d) with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000.00 pounds or less." This definition obviously excludes motorcycles. The question now before the court is whether under a standard automobile liability insurance policy, issued in Connecticut, a motorcycle may be excluded from coverage under the required minimum insurance policy provisions.1
The plaintiff claims that the definition contained in the subject insurance policy actually provides broader coverage than the definition of a "vehicle" under the General Statutes §
The narrow definition contained in the subject insurance policy may well provide a more liberal claim for uninsured motorist coverage in this particular case by nullifying certain exclusions, but cannot logically be considered as a broader expansion of the definition of a "vehicle" as claimed by the plaintiff. It is certainly unlikely that were the insurance company to disclaim coverage the insured motorcycle involved in the initial automobile accident, they would be unsuccessful in the state of Connecticut.
It would also appear that this issue has already been decided in Boytonv. New Haven,
It is the opinion of this court that the definition contained in the subject insurance policy is unenforceable with respect to coverage of motorcycles, and, therefore, the various exclusions referenced by the defendant preclude a claim for underinsured motorist coverage. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
BY THE COURT
___________________ Gilardi, J.