Connecticut
How Boling v. Progressive Casualty applies in Connecticut: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
Connecticut follows similar principles to those articulated in Boling v. Progressive Casualty, particularly regarding the interpretation of insurance policies and the duties of insurers in good faith. The state places significant emphasis on the explicit language of insurance contracts and the reasonable expectations of the insured.
Insurers in Connecticut are required to act in good faith and fairly with respect to the handling of claims, adhering to the reasonable expectations of policyholders while ensuring clear policy terms.
The court held that clear and unambiguous terms in insurance contracts must be honored, providing that insurers have a duty to defend their insureds unless the allegations fall solely outside the policy's coverage.
The court reaffirmed the principle that an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify, emphasizing the importance of the allegations in the underlying complaint.
The court held that an insurer breached its duty of good faith by unreasonably delaying settlement offers, impacting the insured’s reasonable expectations.
Connecticut aligns closely with federal standards regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts. However, Connecticut's case law provides more explicit guidance on the interpretation of policy language and the expectation of the insured, sometimes diverging from federal interpretations in specific contractual obligations.
Questions related to insurance contracts, specifically those addressing good faith duties and claim handling, frequently appear on the Connecticut bar exam, reflecting the importance of Boling principles.