Toni v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.

── Toni v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 14, 2026 Author: Elgo Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Toni v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. KEITH TONI ET AL. v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. (AC 48119) Elgo, Moll and Suarez, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the defendant insurers, P Co. and O Co., on the plaintiffs’ action seeking to recover unin- sured motorist coverage pursuant to automobile insurance policies issued by the defendants. The plaintiffs sustained injuries when the vehicle in which they were passengers, a rented vehicle driven by T, was rear-ended by a motor vehicle operated by an underinsured motorist. T was the named insured on the policy issued by P Co., and the named insured on the policy issued by O Co. was S Co., a company of which the plaintiff C was president. The plaintiffs claimed that the court improperly concluded that they were not entitled to coverage under either policy. Held: The trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs were not insureds entitled to uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to the insurance policy issued by P Co., as, although pursuant to the clear and unambiguous terms of the P Co. policy they were not insured persons for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage, they were occupants of a motor vehicle to which the bodily injury liability coverage of the P Co. policy applied, namely, the motor vehicle rented by T, such that the plaintiffs were entitled to coverage pursu- ant to statute (§ 38a-336 (a) (1) (A)) and the corresponding state regulation (§ 38a-334-6 (a)). The trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs were not insureds entitled to uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to the insurance policy issued by O Co., as the uninsured motorist endorsement in the policy was clear and unambiguous in defining an insured when the named insured was a corporation, and the plaintiffs did not qualify as insureds because T’s rented motor vehicle was not a covered auto under the policy issued to S Co., nor was it rented to replace any motor vehicles listed in the policy. Argued January 15—officially released April 14, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover uninsured motorist benefits alleg- edly due under certain automobile policies issued by the defendants, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the named plaintiff et al. withdrew their claims; thereafter, the court, Tyma, J., granted the named defendant’s motion to bifurcate the issue of coverage and the issues of liability an