You have reached the original website of the
THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.
The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.
Lampo v. Angelo’s Pizza East Rock, L.L.C., 6134 CRB-3-16-10 (January 31, 2018).
Trial commissioner granted Motion to Preclude insurance carrier from disclaiming coverage for this employer when NCCI records showed policy had not been cancelled prior to date of claimant’s injury. Carrier appealed, arguing that pursuant to Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 248 Conn. 754 (1999) they had the right to challenge existence of coverage due to misrepresentations by the employer & should have been able to contest this at a hearing. CRB affirmed decision. Plain meaning of statute bars an insurer from contesting validity of coverage. Providing evidence of coverage either through NCCI or by proffering a certificate of insurance estops a carrier from claiming coverage is ineffective. Same carrier argued in Yelunin v. Royal Ride Transportation, 121 Conn. App. 144 (2010) that NCCI records were conclusive proof of whether a policy had been cancelled; illogical to find these records not equally conclusive as to whether a valid policy had been issued. Consistent with Dengler v.Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440 (2001) carrier’s remedy for wrongfully issued policies is to cancel them pursuant to § 31-348. Any remedy against the insured must be pursued outside Chapter 568.
Lee v. Empire Construction Special Projects, LLC, 5751 CRB-2-12-5 (August 8, 2013);
Michaelson v. Empire Construction Special Projects, LLC, 5752 CRB-2-12-5 (August 8, 2013).
Claimants injured at CT jobsite while working for MA contractor. MA insurance carrier for employer issued insurance certificate and subrogation waiver for compensation insurance for this project. MA carrier then disclaimed legal liability, asserting policy not intended to cover extraterritorial risk and citing Park v. Choi, 46 Conn. App. 596 (1997). CRB found this case inapplicable when carrier accepts added premium and knowingly accepts additional risk. Situation of promissory estoppel present. Carrier also argued issues of insurance coverage beyond scope of Workers’ Compensation Commission. CRB cited DiBello v. Barnes Page Wire Products, 3970 CRB-7-99-2 (March 2, 2000), aff’d, 67 Conn. App. 361 (2001) as authority to contrary. Carrier having provided prima facia evidence of insurance coverage could not later attempt to repudiate covering entire liability of the insured. See also, Lee/Michaelson, § 31-278; § 31-286; § 31-288; § 31-342; § 31-275(9).
Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc., 3432 CRB-2-96-9 (April 6, 1998).
No record of workers’ compensation insurance policy for either subcontractor or general contractor (both Massachusetts companies) was present in records at Chairman’s office pursuant to § 31-348. Trier allowed employers to offer into evidence copies of insurance contracts that showed workers’ compensation insurance coverage on date of injury. He refused to read the policies any further to determine if they applied to Connecticut injuries. Award made against subcontractor and its insurance company. CRB held that this case is controlled by the recent Appellate Court decision in Park v. Choi, 46 Conn. App. 596 (1997), cert. denied, which requires a workers’ compensation commissioner to determine whether an insurance policy provides coverage for job-related injuries occurring in Connecticut before making an order against an insurer. Section 31-343 is not implicated unless the policy includes Connecticut coverage on its face. Case remanded for determination of whether insurance contracts in evidence apply to Connecticut. Board also ruled that insurers should be allowed to present evidence regarding those contracts. See also, Coley, § 31-300, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings. Prior decision at Coley, 3432 CRB-2-96-9 (February 28, 1997), rev’d, 243 Conn. 311 (1997), § 31-301(f).
Park v. New York State Insurance Fund, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 8, 2216 CRB-1-94-11 (October 3, 1996), rev’d, 46 Conn. App. 596 (1997).
See, Park, § 31-288, § 31-355(b).
Paresi v. American Cruise Lines, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 15, 1378 CRB-8-92-1 (January 13, 1994).
See, Paresi, § 31-294c, § 31-340.
You have reached the original website of the