Court Opinion

ID: 9753825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:31:36.642746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:43.321054
License: Public Domain

House, C. J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the decision of the majority that the trial court was in error in finding that the military truck which was at all times the property of the United States government and loaned by it to the state of Connecticut was not a vehicle owned by the state and, accordingly, there was no liability on the part of the state which had waived its sovereign immunity from suit only in instances involving motor vehicles “owned and insured by the state.” General Statutes § 52-556.
In interpreting the language of § 52-556 we are bound by the provisions of General Statutes § 1-1 which expressly provide that “[i]n the construction of the statutes, words and phrases shall be construed according to the commonly approved usage of the language.” Where an automobile belongs to A and A loans the use of it to B, that automobile is not thereupon, “according to the commonly approved usage of the language,” “owned” by B. The fact *587that A is the federal government and B is the state of Connecticut is immaterial. As we said in Consolidated Diesel Electric Corporation v. Stamford, 156 Conn. 33, 38, 238 A.2d 410: “Ownership is an essential incident of title and ‘according to the commonly approved usage of the language’ (General Statutes §1-1), an owner is ‘one that owns; one that has the legal or rightful title whether the possessor or not.’ Webster, Third New International Dictionary.”
The majority opinion finds support for its conclusion in the fact that the truck loaned to the state by the federal government was covered by the automobile liability insurance policy in effect at the time of the collision, holding that “[t]he state recognized an ‘ownership’ in the vehicle by virtue of its contract of insurance.” To the contrary, I find that the provisions of the insurance policy clearly indicate recognition of the fact that the state did not own the vehicle. The policy in standard form covered vehicles “owned” by the state. If the vehicle was in fact owned by the state, no additional provision in the contract was necessary to cover its operation. Since, however, the vehicle was not owned by the state, to obtain coverage it was necessary to add a rider or special endorsement to the policy which was done by an amendment to the standard policy providing that coverage should extend not only to vehicles owned by the state but that coverage “shall include automobiles on loan to the State of Connecticut from federal agencies.” (Emphasis added.) I fail to see how the addition of a special rider affording insurance coverage to vehicles “on loan” to the state constitutes any recognition on the part of the state that the state was the owner of the vehicle loaned to it.
*588I find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that the vehicle in question was not “owned” by the state of Connecticut.
In this opinion Shapiro, J., concurred.