fbpx Skip to content

INSURANCE LAW: Superior Court grants declaratory judgment pursuant to geographic limitation of general liability policy

The policy at issue stated that it would apply to bodily injury and property damage only if these were caused by an occurrence “that takes place on or within the perimeter of the premises, sites or locations scheduled above that are owned by, occupied by, or leased to any insured.”

The claim at issue arose from the defendant’s alleged negligence in repairing a scooter.  As a result of that alleged negligence, it was claimed that an accident occurred off of the insured’s premises.  The insured claimed that a classification limitation endorsement in the policy created an ambiguity as to whether the activities covered under the policy were limited to accidents occurring on the premises.  The classification limitation endorsement stated in relevant part that coverage under the contract was “strictly limited to the classifications and codes listed on the policy declarations”.   The insured claimed that the insurer was required to defend and indemnify all activities that fell within that classification code.

The Superior Court concludes that “the premises limitation endorsement and the classification limitation endorsement limit coverage to accidents occurring on Scooter Pro’s premises and arising out of its operation as a repair shop.”  The court held that the language was clear and unambiguous, limiting coverage to accidents which occurred on the insured’s premises.  Accordingly, the court concluded that there was neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify.

Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Scooter Pro’s LLC, 2016 WL 3912469 (Conn.Super. Aurigemma, J.) (June 21, 2016)