In Kellogg v. Middlesex Assurance Company, the plaintiff was the owner of an historic property that was insured through a restorationist policy issued by the defendant insurer. In 2010, the property was damaged when a four and one-half ton tree fell onto the roof and chimney during a storm. After the plaintiff filed a claim with the insurer, the parties' were unable to agree on the amount of the loss. The insurer invoked the policy's appraisal provision, whereby the parties were to each appoint one appraiser to serve as an arbitrator, and those two appraisers would then choose a neutral third arbitrator to act as an umpire. In September 2013, after the panel's arbitration award was issued, the plaintiff filed in the Superior Court an application to vacate the award. Over the next several years, the litigation went through various stages within Connecticut's Superior Court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court. Earlier in 2022, the Appellate Court reversed an earlier denial of the insurer's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a proper consideration of the motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the motion was granted on all counts. Of note, it was undisputed that the parties entered an unrestricted arbitration involving arbitrators who were empowered to decide issues of law and fact, and that the arbitration award had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The insurer argued that the award constituted a binding judgment and that the doctrine of res judicata barred the breach of contract claim. The plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the insurer properly carried out the terms of the agreement. The Court found nothing in the record to indicate that the appraisal panel did not consider everything in the agreement and everything that occurred. The plaintiff could have raised the breach of contract action in the arbitration. Thus, the Court agreed that the breach of contract action based on the confirmed unrestricted arbitration award was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. As for the plaintiff's claims for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act on the basis of alleged misrepresentations by the insurer, the Court found that the claims were all barred by the applicable statute of limitations and further, that the continuing course of conduct doctrine could not apply to toll the claims. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel upon finding that the parties had a valid written contract, noting that such a claim generally lies when there is no written contract, or the contract cannot be enforced for some reason.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
