Middlesex Ins Co v. Mara et al

Filing 21

ORDER (see attached Order & Table of Contents) granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment and DECLARATORY JUDGMENT that plaintiff Middlesex Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant David Mara in Alton Parks, et a l. v. David A. Mara, Docket No. HHD-CV06-5005257-S, filed by the Parks family in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Hartford. The Clerk is directed to terminate the case, with costs to the plaintiff. So ordered. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on March 29, 2010. (Dorais, L.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II.

DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Jurisdiction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Declaratory Judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Standard for Summary Judgment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Choice of Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Insurance Policy Provisions at Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Construction of Insurance Policy Under Connecticut Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Insurer's Duty to Defend Under Connecticut Law - Determined by the Allegations in the Underlying Complaint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 H. Policy Exclusion for "Intentional Acts" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 I. Analysis of Factual Allegations in the Parks' Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 J. Mara's Objections to Middlesex's Motion for Summary Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. 2. Contract Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 "Intentional Acts" Exclusion under Connecticut Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. 4.

Incidents Where Mara Denies Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mara's Contention of Problems and Deficiencies in Pleading - Negligence (Ninth Count), Invasion of Privacy (Second and Third Counts) and Libel (Sixth Count). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 a. b. c. Negligence (Ninth Count). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Invasion of Privacy (Second and Third Counts).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Libel (Sixth Count). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

K. L.

No Duty to Indemnify. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Request for Reimbursement of Costs and Attorney's Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

III.

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

ii