Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gilleran

── Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gilleran ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 12, 2026 Author: Cradle 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. ************************************************  Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gilleran AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOUGLAS J. GILLERAN ET AL. (AC 48363) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff insurance company appealed from the trial court’s partial summary judgment for the defendants, J and the insureds, D and G, in its action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether it was obligated to defend D under a certain automobile insurance policy in a separate negligence action J brought after a vehicle operated by D collided with the vehicle J was operating. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly concluded that J’s claim for damages in the negligence action for the diminution in value of her repaired automobile potentially fell within the coverage provided by the insurance policy. Held: The trial court properly granted in part the motions for summary judgment filed by J and by D and G, as there was a reasonable basis to conclude that J’s diminution in value claim potentially fell within the insurance policy’s cover- age for destruction of tangible property and, thus, triggered the plaintiff’s duty to defend D in the underlying negligence action. This court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that diminution in value to a motor vehicle cannot constitute destruction of tangible property under the insurance policy’s provision governing damage to a third party’s vehicle, as the policy did not specifically disclaim coverage for diminution in value damages in that provision, as it did elsewhere in the policy, and the term “destruction” in the policy’s definition of property damage encompassed partial destruction of tangible property, which obligated the plaintiff to pay damages that may include costs related to the diminution of a vehicle’s value. Argued January 5—officially released May 12, 2026 Procedural History Action for a declaratory judgment determining whether the plaintiff had a duty to defend the named defendant under a certain automobile insurance policy in a separate negligence action, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Gordon, J., granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the defendants’ motions for summary judgment; judgment in part for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.  Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gilleran Mara E. Finkelstein, with whom, on the brief, were Anthony J. Antonel