Stamford (203) 325-4491
Bridgeport (203) 386-9844
Danbury (203) 816-8476
Greenwich (203) 489-2952
Hartford (860) 785-6585

New Haven (203) 916-5796
New London (860) 785-6581
Waterbury (203) 916-5785
Westport (203) 349-8154
Out of State (866) 248-8744

Call Stamford (203) 325-4491
Bridgeport (203) 386-9844
Danbury (203) 816-8476
Greenwich (203) 489-2952
Hartford (860) 785-6585

New Haven (203) 916-5796
New London (860) 785-6581
Waterbury (203) 916-5785
Westport (203) 349-8154
Out of State (866) 248-8744

Flying Blind: The Ramifications of Hamilton v. USAA, Winter 2010

November 12, 2013 

It is a recurrent,

and frustrating,

scenario:

the plaintiff has

a strong case against an insured defendant,

but the carrier disclaims coverage,

asserting that the conduct alleged in the

complaint is not covered. The two obvious

options are unpalatable: one is to

abandon the claim; the other is to pursue

the case to judgment and only then hope

to establish coverage by bringing an

entirely new action, this time against the

insurance company for subrogation under

General Statutes § 38a-321. In Hamilton v.

USAA, 115 Conn. App. 774, cert. denied,

293 Conn 924 (2009), we tried a third,

more sensible approach, only to see the

Appellate Court elevate form over substance

in a decision that requires plaintiffs

to take the long way around to justice.