Source: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/annotations/an31-343.htm
Timestamp: 2014-08-20 10:44:22
Document Index: 695140307

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31']

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-343
Certain defenses not available against employee or dependent.
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).
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).
See, Park, § 31-288, § 31-355(b).
See, Paresi, § 31-294c, § 31-340.
Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/annotations/an31-343.htm