skip to Main Content

INSURANCE LAW: Connecticut Supreme Court rejects insurer’s claim that exclusion contained in body of policy rather than in endorsement should be enforceable

INSURANCE LAW: Connecticut Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Claim That Exclusion Contained In Body Of Policy Rather Than In Endorsement Should Be Enforceable

INSURANCE LAW – Connecticut Supreme Court rejects insurer’s claim that exclusion contained in body of policy rather than in endorsement should be enforceable: Connecticut General Statutes §38a-335(d) specifically requires that an exclusion of specific individuals from coverage be set forth in a separate endorsement.  Here, the insurer claimed that a clearly written exclusion to the same effect set forth in the body of the insurance policy should be enforced.  “We disagree with the plaintiff that the exclusion’s clarity excuses it from the statutory requirement that it be set forth in an endorsement, or that it is ‘illogical’ to enforce such a requirement.”

Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, SC 19482 (Jan. 19, 2016)