Page 39 - CLT041221

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS APRIL 12, 2021 ¦ 39

to dismiss and the court granted the motion. were liable for the judgment against Henry.
The court first addressed the state law claims. Defendants claimed that the exclusion fully
Defendants argued that common law actions complied with applicable law, was valid and
for damages against the state are barred by enforceable, and therefore the case should be
sovereign immunity, and that plaintiff must dismissed. The court noted that on Saprina’s
first file a complaint with the Claims Commis- application for her car insurance policy with
sioner and demonstrate that she has permis- defendant, she explicitly listed Henry as ex-
sion to sue the state. Plaintiff claimed she did cluded from coverage. The court found that
not need authorization from the Claims Com- defendants complied with the relevant state
missioner. The court disagreed, holding that law by creating a separate Endorsement Form
defendants were correct. Therefore, the court identifying Henry by name as an excluded
dismissed all state law claims. The court then driver, explaining the significance of his ex-
turned to plaintiff ’s federal claims. Plaintiff clusion, requiring Saprina to sign the En-
alleged that defendants discriminated against dorsement Form, explicitly incorporating the
her based on her race, sex, harassment, and Endorsement Form into the policy, and de-
hostile work environment. Defendants argued claring Henry as an excluded driver by name
that plaintiff ’s claims must fail because none in the declaration section of the policy. The
of her allegations provide any facts about court held that Henry’s exclusion from cov-
how defendants discriminated against her. erage was valid and enforceable and granted
The court agreed with defendants and grant- defendant’s motion to dismiss.
ed their motion to dismiss as to the federal
claims as well. Insurance Company Denial Decision

INSURANCE LITIGATION in ERISA Case Was Not Arbitrary or
Capricious

Court Granted Defendants’ CASE: Hughes v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
Motion, Finding Driver’s Exclusion DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01611
from Car Insurance Policy Was COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
DATE: March 25, 2021 • PAGES: 28
Enforceable
An insurance company, that terminated a
CASE: Benitez v. Good2Go Ins., Inc. woman’s long-term disability following years
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut of independent tests, was able to prove that
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-69 the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton The plaintiff, Patricia Hughes, was a nurse in
DATE: March 25, 2021 • PAGES: 6 Georgia when she began experiencing equi-
In 2015, Henry Jemison hit plaintiff with a librium issues in January 2011. By November
car that was owned by his wife Saprina Jemi- 2012, Hughes was forced to stop working and
son. Plaintiff sued both Jemisons in Supe- go on long term disability. Following a covert
rior Court and after they failed to appear, surveillance operation and interviews, Hart-
default judgments were entered against them. ford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Saprina had bought car insurance through determined that she could return to work, and
defendant that was active at the time of the terminated her disability benefits in 2016. In
accident. Plaintiff brought suit against de- 2017, Hughes lost an internal appeal, and the
fendant, arguing that Good2Go had a duty court ruled that Hartford erred and remanded
to defend and indemnify Henry. Plaintiff the decision for a full and fair review. Fol-
admitted that Saprina bought the policy in- lowing a second investigation with indepen-
tending to exclude Henry. Since Good2Go dent doctors, Hartford denied the benefits
failed to defend the Jemisons, plaintiff argued again. Hughes filed suit, and brought a sum-
that defendants were liable for the full judg- mary judgment motion arguing that the court
ment entered in the Superior Court action. should review the case de novo. The court de-
Defendants moved to dismiss and the court nied reviewing the case de novo, and instead
granted the motion. Plaintiff argued that be- ruled that, based upon the evidence, Hart-
cause defendants allegedly failed to properly ford’s termination decision was not arbitrary
exclude Henry via endorsement, defendants or capricious.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune