Page 34 - CLT022420

34 ¦ FEBRUARY 24, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT INSURANCE LAW • REAL ESTATE

CRIMINAL LAW • Court Certifies Questions As To Policy
CIVIL PROCEDURE • IMMIGRATION LAW Interpretation In Basement Foundation
Crumbling Claim Against Insurer

Court Holds “Custody” Requirement CASE: Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp.
in Habeas Decision Cannot Be COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20149
COURT OPINION BY: Palmer
Expanded to Federal Immigration DATE: November 12, 2019 • PAGES: 32
Detention
Plaintiffs are homeowners whose basement
walls suffer from cracking and crumbling as a
CASE: Jobe v. Comm’r of Corr. result of deteriorating concrete. After defen-
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court dant denied plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiff sued for
DOC. NO.: SC 20124 breach of the collapse provisions of their home-
COURT OPINION BY: Ecker owners insurance policy and for violations of
DATE: February 18, 2020 • PAGES: 17 the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices
Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Prac-
Defendant, who is not a US citizen, was arrest- tices Act. During trial, plaintiffs presented the
ed and charged with possession of less than four testimony of a structural engineer, who opined
ounces of marijuana. Defendant pled guilty and the walls would fall down within the next 100
served 11 months in prison. After release, defen- years. Defendants filed for summary judgment,
dant left the United States, and was denied reen- and the District Court certified three ques-
try based on the marijuana conviction. Defen- tions to the State Supreme Court. The court
dant then filed a pro se petition for writ of habe- concluded that the standard set forth in Beach
as corpus challenging his marijuana conviction, v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. applied
alleging his guilty plea was involuntary and his to plaintiff ’s policy; the “substantial impair-
conviction was unconstitutional because he re- ment of structural integrity” standard required
ceived ineffective assistance of counsel. The ha- proof that the home was in imminent danger
beas court dismissed defendant’s petition, find- of falling down, and that “foundation” includ-
ing that the conviction was pre-Padilla and the ed basement walls. Defendant argued that the
protections afforded in Padilla v. Kentucky were
not retroactive. The Appellate Court affirmed policy was sufficiently clear and unambiguous
on the ground that defendant was not “in custo- so as to not apply the Beach standard, however
dy” at the time of the petition. Petitioner argued the court disagreed, finding the policy was not
that his federal immigration detention was suf- so specific. The court also concluded that sub-
ficient to satisfy the “custody” claim, however stantial impairment must be presented through
the court found no such language that expanded evidence, such as expert testimony. The court
the custody requirement to include federal im- further concluded that the term “foundation”
migration detention. The court affirmed the for purposes of policy interpretation includes
Appellate Court’s decision. the basement walls of the plaintiffs’ home.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune