Parskey, J.
This appeal concerns the applicability of the immunity provisions of General Statutes § 49-73a et seq. to the payment by an insurance company of fire loss proceeds to a municipality for outstanding municipal taxes owed by the insured.
The plaintiff insured1 brought an action against the defendant to recover insurance proceeds and damages arising out of a fire loss with respect to certain real property located at 963 Capitol Avenue in the city of Hartford. The defendant filed three special defenses, the thrust of which essentially alleged the same thing, namely, that it had paid the proceeds to the city pursuant to General Statutes § 49-73a et seq. to cover preexisting tax liens on the subject property and was, therefore, immune from liability to the insured under the provisions of the statute. Each party moved for summary judgment, the plaintiffs motion being limited to the issue of liability. The trial court denied the plaintiffs motion and granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Session of the Superior Court from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The Appellate Session found no error in the trial court’s action. Upon the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. We find error.
Were it not for the immunity statute there is, in this case, no question but that the defendant would have been obligated to pay to the insured the fire insurance proceeds within the time period specified in the policy. General Statutes § 49-73g2 relieves the insurance com[655]*655pany from such obligation if the proceeds are paid to the municipality for outstanding tax liens and if the conditions specified in § 49-73d are satisfied.
Section 49-73d3 requires the insurance company to notify the town clerk before paying any fire insurance proceeds and to demand in writing a statement indicat[656]*656ing the amount of all liens filed pursuant to § 49-73a.4 The latter section, together with § 12-173,5 requires the town clerk to give notice in his certificate of lien of his intention to claim against the fire insurance proceeds. The statement must be delivered to the insurance company in person or by registered or certified mail, within twenty days from the date of the receipt by the town clerk of the insurance company’s demand. The insur-[657]*657anee company “may rely conclusively upon the amount of the taxes . . . due as set forth in such notice of lien in making any payments of proceeds to any person.” General Statutes § 49-73d (a).
With its motion for summary judgment the defendant filed affidavits of M. R. Anderson,6 the defendant’s [658]*658claims manager, and of Thomas Sataro7 and Rose M. Blesso,8 tax collector and deputy town clerk, respectively, of the city of Hartford. Anderson stated that [659]*659on May 8,1981, the defendant notified the city of Hartford of its intention to pay fire losses on the Capitol Avenue property. Sataro reported that on May 11, 1981, the tax collector’s office informed Blesso of delinquent taxes on the subject property and that on the same date the tax collector’s office filed a certificate of lien on the land records of the city of Hartford for the delinquent taxes for the 1979 and 1980 assessment for this property. Blesso asserted that on May 28,1981, the city of Hartford notified the defendant by registered mail of the existence of delinquent taxes on the Capitol Avenue property.
An insurance company may pay fire loss proceeds directly to a municipality without liability to the insured provided that it gives the municipality notice of a payable fire loss claim, demands from the municipality a statement of outstanding tax liens filed pursuant to § 49-73a and the municipality delivers such a statement to the company within the twenty day period specified by statute.
[660]*660The deputy town clerk received the notice from the defendant on May 8,1981. On May 28,1981, by either certified or registered mail,9 the clerk sent to the defendant a letter containing information with respect to outstanding tax liens on the Capitol Avenue property. Section 49-73d provides that the statement of the town clerk shall be “delivered” to the insurance company “in person or by registered or certified mail, within twenty days from the date of receipt by the town clerk of such demand.” Excluding May 8, the date of the receipt of the “demand”; Austin, Nicholas & Co. v. Gilman, 100 Conn. 81, 83, 123 A. 32 (1923); if mailing constitutes delivery within the meaning of the statute, then the statute was satisfied in this respect.
“The word ‘deliver’ includes a handing over for the purpose of taking even though both acts do not occur simultaneously. State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 43 [178 A. 923 (1935)].” Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn. Sup. 676, 678, 366 A.2d 1165, cert. denied, 171 Conn. 731, 357 A.2d 515 (1976). When a statute, such as section 49-73d, authorizes delivery by mail then depositing a letter with the post office in the specified manner and within the specified time period constitutes delivery to the defendant. See id., 679.
The record is, however, barren of the requisite demand and statement. The Anderson affidavit contains no reference to any demand whatsoever, let alone the demand required by § 49-73d. The Blesso affidavit refers generally to her duty to answer inquiries concerning delinquent taxes made prior to the payment of fire insurance proceeds but makes no reference to a specific inquiry by the defendant with respect to liens against fire loss proceeds. Accompanying the affida[661]*661vit is a letter from Blesso to the defendant. This letter recites that in compliance with Public Acts 1979, No. 79-342 and Public Acts 1980, No. 80-207 (General Statutes §§ 49-73a to 49-73Í) she has searched her records “for tax liens in existence” and is “enclosing them with this letter.” Attached to the letter is a list of tax liens for the assessment lists of 1977 through 1980. Neither the letter nor the accompanying list make any express reference to the requirement of § 12-173 (5) for inclusion in the lien certificate of a statement regarding the intention to file a lien against the fire loss proceeds. Whether a reasonably prudent insurer would have construed this communication of the town clerk and the enclosed list of liens to include only those for which the certificate complied fully with § 12-173, including the notice concerning fire loss proceeds, presents an issue of fact for the trier to be determined from all the surrounding circumstances. One significant circumstance would be the content of the notice and demand which the defendant claims to have given to the town clerk in conformity with § 49-73d (a) but which has been omitted from the material presented with the motion for summary judgment as well as from the record on appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Parskey, J.
This appeal concerns the applicability of the immunity provisions of General Statutes § 49-73a et seq. to the payment by an insurance company of fire loss proceeds to a municipality for outstanding municipal taxes owed by the insured.
The plaintiff insured1 brought an action against the defendant to recover insurance proceeds and damages arising out of a fire loss with respect to certain real property located at 963 Capitol Avenue in the city of Hartford. The defendant filed three special defenses, the thrust of which essentially alleged the same thing, namely, that it had paid the proceeds to the city pursuant to General Statutes § 49-73a et seq. to cover preexisting tax liens on the subject property and was, therefore, immune from liability to the insured under the provisions of the statute. Each party moved for summary judgment, the plaintiffs motion being limited to the issue of liability. The trial court denied the plaintiffs motion and granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Session of the Superior Court from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The Appellate Session found no error in the trial court’s action. Upon the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. We find error.
Were it not for the immunity statute there is, in this case, no question but that the defendant would have been obligated to pay to the insured the fire insurance proceeds within the time period specified in the policy. General Statutes § 49-73g2 relieves the insurance com[655]*655pany from such obligation if the proceeds are paid to the municipality for outstanding tax liens and if the conditions specified in § 49-73d are satisfied.
Section 49-73d3 requires the insurance company to notify the town clerk before paying any fire insurance proceeds and to demand in writing a statement indicat[656]*656ing the amount of all liens filed pursuant to § 49-73a.4 The latter section, together with § 12-173,5 requires the town clerk to give notice in his certificate of lien of his intention to claim against the fire insurance proceeds. The statement must be delivered to the insurance company in person or by registered or certified mail, within twenty days from the date of the receipt by the town clerk of the insurance company’s demand. The insur-[657]*657anee company “may rely conclusively upon the amount of the taxes . . . due as set forth in such notice of lien in making any payments of proceeds to any person.” General Statutes § 49-73d (a).
With its motion for summary judgment the defendant filed affidavits of M. R. Anderson,6 the defendant’s [658]*658claims manager, and of Thomas Sataro7 and Rose M. Blesso,8 tax collector and deputy town clerk, respectively, of the city of Hartford. Anderson stated that [659]*659on May 8,1981, the defendant notified the city of Hartford of its intention to pay fire losses on the Capitol Avenue property. Sataro reported that on May 11, 1981, the tax collector’s office informed Blesso of delinquent taxes on the subject property and that on the same date the tax collector’s office filed a certificate of lien on the land records of the city of Hartford for the delinquent taxes for the 1979 and 1980 assessment for this property. Blesso asserted that on May 28,1981, the city of Hartford notified the defendant by registered mail of the existence of delinquent taxes on the Capitol Avenue property.
An insurance company may pay fire loss proceeds directly to a municipality without liability to the insured provided that it gives the municipality notice of a payable fire loss claim, demands from the municipality a statement of outstanding tax liens filed pursuant to § 49-73a and the municipality delivers such a statement to the company within the twenty day period specified by statute.
[660]*660The deputy town clerk received the notice from the defendant on May 8,1981. On May 28,1981, by either certified or registered mail,9 the clerk sent to the defendant a letter containing information with respect to outstanding tax liens on the Capitol Avenue property. Section 49-73d provides that the statement of the town clerk shall be “delivered” to the insurance company “in person or by registered or certified mail, within twenty days from the date of receipt by the town clerk of such demand.” Excluding May 8, the date of the receipt of the “demand”; Austin, Nicholas & Co. v. Gilman, 100 Conn. 81, 83, 123 A. 32 (1923); if mailing constitutes delivery within the meaning of the statute, then the statute was satisfied in this respect.
“The word ‘deliver’ includes a handing over for the purpose of taking even though both acts do not occur simultaneously. State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 43 [178 A. 923 (1935)].” Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn. Sup. 676, 678, 366 A.2d 1165, cert. denied, 171 Conn. 731, 357 A.2d 515 (1976). When a statute, such as section 49-73d, authorizes delivery by mail then depositing a letter with the post office in the specified manner and within the specified time period constitutes delivery to the defendant. See id., 679.
The record is, however, barren of the requisite demand and statement. The Anderson affidavit contains no reference to any demand whatsoever, let alone the demand required by § 49-73d. The Blesso affidavit refers generally to her duty to answer inquiries concerning delinquent taxes made prior to the payment of fire insurance proceeds but makes no reference to a specific inquiry by the defendant with respect to liens against fire loss proceeds. Accompanying the affida[661]*661vit is a letter from Blesso to the defendant. This letter recites that in compliance with Public Acts 1979, No. 79-342 and Public Acts 1980, No. 80-207 (General Statutes §§ 49-73a to 49-73Í) she has searched her records “for tax liens in existence” and is “enclosing them with this letter.” Attached to the letter is a list of tax liens for the assessment lists of 1977 through 1980. Neither the letter nor the accompanying list make any express reference to the requirement of § 12-173 (5) for inclusion in the lien certificate of a statement regarding the intention to file a lien against the fire loss proceeds. Whether a reasonably prudent insurer would have construed this communication of the town clerk and the enclosed list of liens to include only those for which the certificate complied fully with § 12-173, including the notice concerning fire loss proceeds, presents an issue of fact for the trier to be determined from all the surrounding circumstances. One significant circumstance would be the content of the notice and demand which the defendant claims to have given to the town clerk in conformity with § 49-73d (a) but which has been omitted from the material presented with the motion for summary judgment as well as from the record on appeal. The information contained in the Blesso letter does not indicate so unequivocally that the tax liens listed were filed in conformity with § 12-173 that it can be said as a matter of law that the defendant was entitled to make that assumption and thus receive the protection afforded by § 49-73g to an insurer which has reasonably relied “upon information contained in any statement provided by a municipality pursuant to section 49-73d.” Where reasonableness of conduct is an issue it is only under exceptional circumstances that the question can be resolved without a trial. The Sataro affidavit simply states that he informed Blesso of delinquent taxes on the subject property. Thus, what can be gleaned from the several documents is that the defendant notified the city of its intention to pay fire insur-[662]*662anee proceeds to the insured, was advised by city officials of the amount of tax liens on the insured’s property and thereupon paid the proceeds to the city.
Practice Book § 384 provides that a summary judgment may be rendered for a moving party “if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” If the trial court grants a motion for summary judgment in the mistaken belief that the factual predicate for that judgment is present, such action is clearly erroneous. Mizla v. Depalo, 183 Conn. 59, 63, 438 A.2d 820 (1981).
It is not enough for the insurance company to request the amount of outstanding tax liens. It must specifically request the amount of liens filed pursuant to § 49-73a, that is, liens involving a claim against fire loss proceeds. Although the company is not required to examine the land records to ascertain whether the municipality has in fact complied with the statute, its reliance on the town clerk’s statement would be reasonable only where that statement construed under all the surrounding circumstances would apprise a reasonably prudent insurer that the tax liens referred to had been filed in accordance with § 12-173. No such demand having been made and no such statement having been delivered, the defendant has not satisfied the statutory predicate for immunity from liability to the insured for fire loss claims under the insurance policy.
There is error, the judgment of the Appellate Session of the Superior Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court10 for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.