Insurance Coverage: Court applies Pennsylvania law to interpret the plaintiff’s auto insurance policy, allowing stacking

Background and Claims in the Case

At the time of the underlying motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under a policy that entitled the plaintiff to recover damages if he was injured in an accident involving a vehicle owned or operated by an uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor. The plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the tortfeasor and State Farm, asserting claims for negligence and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, respectively.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact because the tortfeasor’s automobile liability insurance coverage exceeded the plaintiff’s UM/UIM coverage. Therefore, the tortfeasor’s vehicle does not meet the definition of “underinsured” under General Statutes § 38a-336(e). Under this statute, an “underinsured motor vehicle” is defined as “a motor vehicle with respect to which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable limits of liability under the uninsured motorist portion of the policy against which claim is made…” Additionally, State Farm argued that stacking insurance policies is not permitted under Connecticut law.

In his objection to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff contended that Pennsylvania law permits the stacking of insurance policies and that Pennsylvania law should apply because the plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. The court identified the threshold issue as determining whether Connecticut or Pennsylvania law should apply. If Pennsylvania law applies, the plaintiff would be allowed to stack multiple policies issued by State Farm. However, if Connecticut law applies, the plaintiff would not be permitted to do so.

Choice of Law Analysis and Court Decision

The court explained that an action to recover under an automobile insurance policy is a contractual matter, not a tort. Under Connecticut’s choice of law rules for contract claims, courts apply the “significant relationship test.” According to § 193 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, there is a presumption in favor of applying the law of the state that the parties understood to be the principal location of the insured risk. This presumption can be overcome if another state has sufficiently strong interests in applying its own law.

To determine which state has the most significant relationship, the court examined the seven factors outlined in § 6(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: (1) the needs of the interstate and international systems; (2) the relevant policies of the forum; (3) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue; (4) the protection of justified expectations; (5) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law; (6) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result; and (7) ease in determining and applying the law to be applied.

Additionally, § 188(2) of the Restatement (Second) provides five specific contacts to consider: (1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiation of the contract; (3) the place of performance; (4) the location of the subject matter of the contract; and (5) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties.

Using these factors, the court noted that the place of contracting was Pennsylvania, the contract appeared to have been negotiated in Pennsylvania, and the agent listed on the policy was based in Pennsylvania. The defendant provided no evidence to dispute that the contacts analysis favored Pennsylvania, other than pointing out that the accident occurred in Connecticut. The court stated that the defendant could only overcome this presumption by demonstrating that applying Pennsylvania law would violate a fundamental public policy of Connecticut.

The court found that Pennsylvania’s public policy interests in this case outweighed those of Connecticut, as Connecticut’s interest stemmed solely from the fact that the collision occurred in the state. As a result, the court determined that Pennsylvania law was applicable. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ringler v. Brockway, No. KNL-CV20-6046742-S, 2024 WL 4023733 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2024).