Monday, May 24, 2010

More certified questions. This time the questions are being certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The case, Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, involves an insurance company's disclaimer of liability purportedly because the accident at issue did not occur in an "insured location." The questions are:

1. With respect to a claim for negligent entrustment under a liability policy that excludes coverage for "[a]rising out of . . . [t]he entrustment by an insured" "to any person""of a motor vehicle" other than "[a] motorized land conveyance designed for recreational use off public roads, not subject to motor vehicle registration and . . . [o]wned by an insured and on an insured location," is the insured location
(a) the place where the entrustment of the vehicle took place; or
(b) the place where the vehicle is garaged; or
(c) the place where the accident occurred?

2. In the absence of a policy definition of "premises," should a private road located within a residential development owned by insured's homeowners association be considered "premises used . . . in connection with a [residence] premises" under the terms of a homeowner's insurance policy if the portion of the road where the liability arose is not regularly used by the insured, although other portions of the road are so used?

3. Under Connecticut law, where a liability insurance policy requires an insured to give notice of a covered claim "as soon as practical," do social interactions between the insured and the claimant making no reference to an accident claim justify a delay in giving notice of a potential claim to the insured?

The decision in which the Court certified these questions can be found here.
Certified questions. This time the questions are certified to the Vermont Supreme Court. The case, Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. Brennan Beer Gorman/Architects, P.C., involves a dispute between a general contractor and design professionals. The District Court dismissed the action, holding that the action was barred by the Vermont economic loss doctrine. The question certified by the Second Circuit are:

1. Does the economic loss doctrine bar a contractor from seeking purely economic damages against design professionals who allegedly provided negligent professional services in violation of the designed professionals' contractual obligations with a mutual counterparty?

2. Does the economic loss doctrine apply to claims of negligent misrepresentation?
Federal rate. The Second Circuit has held that the federal rate of post-judgment interest rather than the New York rate should be applied in a diversity case where the contract at issue contains a choice-of-law provision providing that New York law applies. The Court held that the choice-of-law provision was insufficient to establish that the parties intended that the federal rate would not apply. The decision in FCS Advisors, Inc. v. Fair Finance Co. can be found here.