Connecticut General Statutes|Sec. 38a-335. (Formerly Sec. 38-175b). Minimum coverages. Applicability. Statement of coverage for rented motor vehicle.

                                                
Sec. 38a-335. (Formerly Sec. 38-175b). Minimum coverages. Applicability. Statement of coverage for rented motor vehicle. (a) Each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334 against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law, with limits not less than those specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112, for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person and injury to or destruction of property arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a specific motor vehicle or motor vehicles within any state, territory, or possession of the United States of America or Canada.

(b) Each automobile liability insurance policy issued, renewed, amended or endorsed on or after October 1, 1988, and covering a private passenger motor vehicle as defined in subsection (e) of section 38a-363, shall contain or have attached thereto a conspicuous statement specifying whether the policy provides liability, collision or comprehensive coverage for damage to a rented private passenger motor vehicle and, where the policy provides such coverage, the limit of coverage provided and whether any deductible amount applies.

(c) Each automobile liability insurance policy issued, renewed, amended or endorsed on or after April 8, 1974, shall provide that if the provisions of the motor vehicle financial responsibility law or the motor vehicle compulsory insurance law or any similar law of any state, territory or possession of the United States of America or any Province of Canada, require insurance with respect to the operation or use of the motor vehicle in such state, territory, possession or province and such insurance requirements are greater than the insurance provided by the policy, the limits of the company's liability and the kinds of coverage afforded by the policy shall be as set forth in such law, in lieu of the insurance otherwise provided by the policy, but only to the extent required by such law and only with respect to the operation or use of the motor vehicle in such state, territory, possession or province; provided the insurance under this subsection shall be reduced to the extent that there is other valid and collectible insurance under such policy or any other motor vehicle insurance policy. In no event shall any person be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same element of loss.

(d) With respect to the insured motor vehicle, the coverage afforded under the bodily injury liability and property damage liability provisions in any such policy shall apply to the named insured and relatives residing in such insured's household unless any such relative is specifically excluded by endorsement.

(1967, P.A. 510, S. 3; P.A. 74-30, S. 1, 2; P.A. 85-13; P.A. 88-157, S. 1; P.A. 90-243, S. 126; P.A. 99-145, S. 3, 23; P.A. 11-19, S. 4.)

Annotations to former section 38-175b:

Cited. 160 C. 280. Regulations under statute make “other insurance” clauses in conflict with the regulations. 161 C. 169. Cited. 169 C. 502; overruled with respect to holding an uninsured motorist coverage, see 219 C. 371; 171 C. 252; Id., 463; 187 C. 386; 203 C. 45; Id., 258; Id., 305.

Cited. 31 CS 229; 36 CS 256.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 225 C. 257; 234 C. 182.

Cited. 25 CA 492; judgment reversed, see 222 C. 744; 34 CA 679; 41 CA 632; 45 CA 630.

Subsec. (c):

In action for underinsured motorist benefits, since jury verdict was less than amount insured had already recovered from tortfeasor, insured not entitled to recover any additional damages because to do so would result in impermissible double recovery. 49 CA 306.

Subsec. (d):

Statute is not an absolute prohibition on household exclusions, but merely requires notice and acceptance by insured of an endorsement that specifically excludes relatives residing in the household of the named insured; statute prescribes a process by which such exclusions must be executed to be valid. 282 C. 454. Under 2009 revision, trial court improperly held that exclusion was valid, as that exclusion was not set forth in an endorsement as clearly and unambiguously required by Subsec., but rather, was listed among other exclusions in the body of the policy itself. 320 C. 205.