Page 34 - CLT062821

34 ■ JUNE 28, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE In 2016, plaintiff arrived at his second home in
Bethany, Connecticut. He found the property
Court Denied Defendants’ Motions in completely ruined with water and mold every-
Case Arising from Alleged Discharge of where. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of
an insurance policy and the case went to trial.
Pollutants Defendant argued that plaintiff was entitled
to nothing because plaintiff had not taken
CASE: United States v. Andrews reasonable care to maintain heat at the prop-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut erty. The court found in favor of defendant.
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-1300
COURT OPINION BY: Hall The court found that the evidence proved that
DATE: June 11, 2021 • PAGES: 12 plaintiff was not present at the property dur-
Plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants seek- ing the winter of 2015 to 2016, and the cause
ing injunctive relief and penalties in connection of the loss was a freeze-up. The court noted
with defendants’ alleged discharge of pollutants that plaintiff left the property unattended even
into waters of the United States without a permit, though he knew the electrical bills were astro-
and failure to respond to the EPA’s information re- nomical when there was no apparent reason for
quests. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for the bill to be that high, and when the furnace’s
lack of jurisdiction. Defendants also filed a motion pilot light had gone out in the past. He did not
to suppress. The court denied both. Defendants ar- arrange for someone to check on the property,
gued that in the motion to suppress, plaintiff mis- even though he easily could have done so. Be-
led the court in its warrant application by relying cause defendant satisfied its burden of proving
on evidence generated using the state definition of that the insurance policy’s Freezing Exclusion
wetlands, which differs from the federal definition. applied to bar coverage for the loss, plaintiff
Therefore, defendants claimed that in relying on a bore the burden of proving that the Heating
wetlands delineation map based on the state stan- Exception applied to reinstate coverage. The
dard, the U.S. confused the court into concluding court found that plaintiff did not meet that
there was a reasonable ground to believe a violation burden because he did not use reasonable care
of federal law had occurred. The court disagreed. to maintain heat at the property or shut off the
It found that the warrant application provided U.S. property’s water supply and drain the pipes.
Dept. of Agriculture soil survey data and U.S. Fish Therefore, the loss was not covered under the
and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory wetlands insurance policy.
data, along with other evidence of substantial
changes in the condition of the property, and there- LEGAL ETHICS AND ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
fore there was reasonable grounds to believe that de-
fendant’s property contained federal wetlands that Court Denied Plaintiff’s Request for
had been previously or actively filled. The court Reconsideration of Order Revoking
also held that it clearly had federal subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims, seeing as how the com- Out-Of-State Attorney’s Provisional
plaint alleged violations of the Clean Water Act Admission
and was brought in the name of the United States.
The CWA is a federal law and therefore is an action CASE: Laiscell v. Hartford Bd. of Educ
“arising under” federal law. COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-1463
INSURANCE LITIGATION COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
DATE: June 10, 2021 • PAGES: 9
Michael Sussman is an attorney licensed in
Court Found Heating Exception Did New York, but is not admitted to practice in
Not Apply and Plaintiff’s Loss Was Not Connecticut. Attorney Jennings, a member of
Covered this bar, filed a motion for Sussman’s admis-
sion pursuant to the Local Rules. Attorney
CASE: Van Natta v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE Jennings’ motion was denied because Sussman
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut failed to satisfy the standard for admission
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-438 clearly specified in the Local Rules. A second
COURT OPINION BY: Underhill motion was filed and Sussman was provision-
DATE: June 16, 2021 • PAGES: 33 ally admitted conditioned on the filing of a
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune