Insurance Coverage / CT Appellate Court Requires UM Coverage for Vehicle Occupants

Insurance Coverage: Under Connecticut law, Appellate Court requires insurer to provide uninsured motorist coverage to occupants of a vehicle operated by its insured:

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the lower court improperly concluded that they were not insureds entitled to uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to automobile insurance policies issued by the defendant, Progressive. The Appellate Court finds the following facts undisputed: On October 12, 2019, the plaintiffs were passengers in a motor vehicle rented and operated by an individual. The vehicle was subsequently rear-ended by a motor vehicle operated by an underinsured motorist. The plaintiffs sustained injuries as a result of the accident, and the underinsured motorist’s insurer later denied coverage to the plaintiffs. At the time of the collision, there was a Connecticut automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive to the individual operating the rented vehicle in which the plaintiffs were passengers. Said policy included provisions for uninsured motorist coverage. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced the underlying action against Progressive. After completion of a bench trial, the lower court concluded that the plaintiffs were not insureds entitled to uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to the Progressive policy. This appeal follows. In Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 225 Conn. 257, 622 A.2d 572 (1993), our Supreme Court explained that § 38a-336 “does not require automobile insurance policies to provide underinsured motorist benefits to any particular class or group of insureds. . . . The legislature did not specifically define ‘insured’ in the context of under-insured motorist coverage. Rather, the statute requires that underinsured motorist coverage must be provided ‘for the protection of persons insured thereunder.’ . . . Thus, ‘persons insured’ in this statute refers to persons specified as insureds in the liability portion of the policy.” However, Section 38a-334-6(a) of the regulations does require uninsured motorist coverage for occupants of an insured motor vehicle. In light of the fact that occupants of a motor vehicle would not be insured under the driver’s policy for automobile liability, Section 38a-334-6(a) requires protection for this otherwise unprotected group. The Appellate Court finds undisputed that the plaintiffs were occupants of the individual’s rented vehicle at the time of the accident and that the express language of the Progressive policy extends bodily injury liability coverage to the motor vehicle rented by the individual. As such, the Appellate Court holds that Progressive is required by law to extend uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiffs in connection with the underlying accident. Therefore, the lower court improperly rendered judgment in Progressive’s favor. The Appellate Court reverses the lower court’s decision in part. Toni v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 238 Conn. App. 522, 544, 356 A.3d 437 (2026).