Drunk Driving into a Pole Not a Covered Loss
b'
No Coverage for Loss After Policy Cancelled\\n\\nIn an action for declaratory judgment to determine whether the \\nplaintiffs had a duty to defend and indemnify the defendants under \\ncertain insurance policies for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle \\naccident, where the trial court granted the plaintiffs\' motion for \\nsummary judgment.\\n\\nIn Liberty Insurance Corporation et al. v. Theodore Johnson et al., No. \\nAC 45933, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (December 5, 2023) the Court \\nof Appeals resolved the dispute.FACTSThe defendants, Theodore Johnson \\n(Theodore) and Kim Johnson (Kim), appealed from the judgment rendered by\\n the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment\\n filed by the plaintiffs, Liberty Insurance et al and Safeco Insurance \\nCompany of Illinois (Safeco). \\n\\nThe primary issue is duty to defend a separate action that stemmed from a\\n motor vehicle accident in which the defendants\' son, Aaron Johnson \\n(Aaron), was driving a motor vehicle owned by Theodore when he lost \\ncontrol of the vehicle and struck a telephone pole, causing serious \\ninjuries to a passenger in the vehicle, Jordan Torres.At some point \\nprior to 1:33 a.m. on December 26, 2019, Aaron left the defendants\' \\nhouse and operated a 1997 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro (Audi) owned by Theodore. \\nTorres was a passenger in the Audi at the time. \\n\\nAs Aaron attempted to navigate a curve, he lost control of the Audi, \\ncrossed into the westbound lane of traffic, and left the roadway, \\nstriking a telephone pole.Torres sustained personal injuries in the \\naccident and sued a bar in Newington and its backer, as well as \\nTheodore, Kim and Aaron. In the Torres action, Torres alleged that, on \\nDecember 25, 2019, Aaron, a minor, consumed alcohol at the bar, after \\nwhich he went to the defendants\' house in Glastonbury, where he was \\nvisibly intoxicated and consumed more alcohol.\\n\\nFollowing the commencement of the Torres action, the defendants sought \\ncoverage from the plaintiffs for Torres\' claims under three policies of \\ninsurance:a homeowners insurance policy issued to the defendants by \\nLiberty Insurance (homeowners policy);an automobile insurance policy \\nissued to the defendants by Safeco (automobile policy); andan umbrella \\ninsurance policy issued to the defendants by Liberty Mutual (umbrella \\npolicy).\\n\\nThereafter, the insurer plaintiffs sued seeking a judgment declaring \\nthat the plaintiffs are not obligated to defend or indemnify the \\ndefendants with respect to Torres\\u2019 action.Specifically, the insurers \\nbased that argument on an exclusion in the homeowners policy that \\nexcludes coverage for" \'bodily injury\' or \'property damage\' . . . \\narising out of (1) [t]he ownership, ... of motor vehicles ... operated \\nby or rented or loaned to an \'insured\' [motor vehicle exclusion] . . . \\n." \\n
\\n