The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed a verdict that found an insurer did not have to defend or indemnify an insured based on the motor vehicle exclusion in the insured's homeowners policy. The case is Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 2023 Conn. App. LEXIS 279 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023). 

The underlying case alleged that Theodore and Kim Johnson (Johnsons) had negligently allowed their minor son, Aaron, to consume alcohol at home after he arrived visibly intoxicated, then permitted him to drive Theodore's car (the vehicle). Jordan Torres was a passenger in the car and suffered severe injuries when Aaron lost control of the vehicle and hit a telephone pole. 

The Johnsons sought coverage from their automobile policy with Safeco as well as their homeowners and umbrella policies, both issued by Liberty. Both insurers denied the claim and filed for summary judgment. Safeco asserted that the Johnsons had voluntarily cancelled bodily injury coverage for Theodore's vehicle shortly before the accident. Liberty claimed the damages had arisen from the ownership and use of an automobile and were therefore excluded under the homeowners policy. Liberty also argued umbrella coverage didn't apply because there was no supporting coverage. The Johnsons argued that Torres's allegations of negligence precluded application of the motor vehicle exclusion in their homeowners policy, and therefore it was possible the claims could be covered.