Security Company Did Not Have a Duty to Defend Brass Mill
Waterbury CT August 16 2022
The plaintiff shopping mall sought indemnification from the defendant
A security company it contracted with to provide security services to
the mall property, including crime prevention. The plaintiff had incurred
economic losses as a result of a separate wrongful death action brought
against it by the administrator of the estate of a pedestrian who had
been struck and killed while crossing the roadway surrounding the mall
while on her way to work in the mall. The wrongful death action alleged
that the plaintiff’s negligence caused the collision by, inter alia, its design
of the mall’s parking lots and roads and its failure to implement various traffic calming measures. The plaintiff demanded defense and indemnification from A Co. in connection with the wrongful death action; A Co. denied the plaintiff’s demand, explaining that A Co. was not responsible for the design of the roadway or the absence of traffic calming measures.
The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in the indemnification
action, asserting that, inter alia, A Co. had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in connection with the wrongful death action, and A Co. filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied A Co.’s motion, granted the plaintiff’s motion as to liability, and awarded damages to the plaintiff. On A Co.’s appeal to this court, held that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying A Co.’s motion for summary judgment, as A Co. was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law: A Co.’s obligation to defend the plaintiff was not triggered by the wrongful death action, as the wrongful death action did not contain allegations of negligence or other conduct that even arguably fell within the scope of A Co.’s contractual responsibilities to provide security services, and the court erroneously conflated the allegations in the wrongful death action regarding traffic control with A Co.’s contractual obligations for crime prevention as the security contractor for the property; moreover, as A Co. did not have a duty to defend the plaintiff pursuant to the indemnification provision of the security contract, A Co. did not have a duty to indemnify the plaintiff.
Argued March 2—officially released August 9, 2022
Procedural History
Action for, inter alia, indemnification for economic losses allegedly incurred by the plaintiff, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where the action was withdrawn as against the named defendant et al.; thereafter, the court, Roraback, J., denied in part the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability; subsequently, after a hearing in damages, the court, Roraback, J., rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed.
Ashley A. Noel, with whom was Cassandra Pilczak, for the appellant (defendant AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC). Michael Smith, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Plain English: After a mall employee was fatally wounded during a motor vehicle accident while walking to work, the family sued the mall for a wrongful death and in turn, the mall sued its security provider, AlliedBarton for not preventing the death on mall property by providing traffic control.
Originally, the lower court agreed that the security provider failed to perform such duties and was partially responsible for the employee’s death but on appeal, the court ruled that AlliedBarton had no duty to the mall to provide traffic services since it was not part of their original contract and thus was not responsible in this matter.
Source: https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP214/214AP320.pdf
