## Facts

- Rouget Jenkins, a New York resident, held an automobile liability policy issued and delivered in New York by Indemnity Insurance Company of North America.
- In July 1958, while driving in Connecticut, Jenkins crashed into concrete abutments; his passenger and wife, Patricia Jenkins, was injured.
- Although the policy’s printed language broadly covered bodily injury to “any person,” New York Insurance Law § 167(3) barred coverage for an insured’s liability to a spouse unless the policy expressly provided such coverage; Jenkins’s policy contained no express spousal-coverage provision.
- Shortly after the accident, the insurer was informed that Patricia was injured and would make a claim; Patricia’s counsel later raised the question whether spousal recovery was available under a New York-issued policy for an out-of-state accident.
- On September 18, 1958, the insurer wrote Patricia’s attorney that it would pay, within policy limits and subject to policy provisions, any final judgment against Jenkins arising from the accident; it negotiated the claim through October 27 without invoking § 167(3).
- After learning the seriousness of Patricia’s injuries and expenses, the insurer disclaimed coverage on November 12, 1958, relying on § 167(3).
- Patricia sued Jenkins in Connecticut; counsel furnished by the insurer defended the action, and Patricia obtained a $25,000 judgment.
- Jenkins then filed a Connecticut declaratory-judgment action seeking a declaration of coverage and indemnity, an order requiring payment of Patricia’s judgment, and damages for his defense-related expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether New York law, including Insurance Law § 167(3), governed the scope of a New York-issued automobile liability policy for a Connecticut accident and thereby excluded spousal-injury liability absent an express coverage provision.
2. Whether the insurer waived reliance on § 167(3) by its letter agreeing to pay a final judgment (subject to policy provisions), settlement activity, and participation in the defense of the tort action.
3. Whether the insurer was estopped from denying coverage because its conduct allegedly induced reliance by Jenkins and/or Patricia to their detriment.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the insurer.
- New York Insurance Law § 167(3) applied and was incorporated into the policy, precluding coverage for Jenkins’s liability to his wife because the policy lacked an express spousal-coverage provision.
- The insurer did not waive § 167(3); the record supported findings that waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right and that the September 18 letter was conditional “subject to” policy provisions.
- The insurer was not estopped to deny coverage; the trial court found no detrimental change of position by Jenkins or Patricia, and estoppel could not be used to impose coverage for a risk not assumed under governing law.

## Legal Principles

- The law of the state where an insurance contract is made and delivered governs its interpretation and incorporates that state’s statutory limitations into the policy.
- A statute limiting automobile liability coverage for spousal injuries operates as a policy limitation unless the policy expressly provides spousal-injury coverage.
- Waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right; conditional settlement assurances “subject to” policy provisions do not expand coverage beyond statutory and contractual limits.
- Estoppel requires misleading conduct, reasonable reliance, and prejudice; it cannot be applied to create or enlarge coverage to include risks the insurer did not assume.
- An insurer’s provision of a defense, without more, does not establish indemnity coverage barred by statute or excluded by the policy as properly construed.

## Conclusion

Because New York law governed the New York-issued policy and § 167(3) excluded liability coverage for injuries to the insured’s spouse absent an express provision, the insurer owed no duty to indemnify Jenkins for his wife’s judgment; neither waiver nor estoppel prevented the insurer from asserting the statutory exclusion.


Jenkins v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 152 Conn. 249, 205 A.2d 780 (Conn. 1964)