Henry Jemison hit the plaintiff with a car that had been owned by his wife, Saprina Jemison. The plaintiff sued both Jemisons, and when they had failed to appear, default judgments were entered against them. Saprina had purchased car insurance through Good2Go Ins., Inc., which had been active at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff brought suit against Good2Go Insurance. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, Good2Go Insurance, had a duty to defend and indemnify Henry Jemison; however, Saprina had purchased the policy intending to exclude Henry from the policy. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were liable for the full judgment entered in the default. Good2Go Insurance moved to dismiss. The plaintiff argued that because they had failed to properly exclude Henry via endorsement, the insurer was now liable for the judgment against Henry. Good2Go Insurance argued that the exclusion fully complied with applicable law, was valid and enforceable, and should therefore be enforced. The application for Saprina’s car insurance explicitly listed Henry as excluded from coverage, the documents complied with relevant state law by creating a separate endorsement form, incorporated the endorsement form into the policy, and declared Henry as an excluded driver by name in the declaration section of the policy. Due to this, the Court holds that the exclusion is valid and grants the motion to dismiss. Benitez v. Good2Go Ins., Inc., U.S. District Court for Connecticut, Docket No. 3:20-cv-69, (March 25, 2021).