Connecticut Statutes
§ 38a-335 — (Formerly Sec. 38-175b). Minimum coverages. Applicability. Statement of coverage for rented motor vehicle.
Connecticut § 38a-335
This text of Connecticut § 38a-335 ((Formerly Sec. 38-175b). Minimum coverages. Applicability. Statement of coverage for rented motor vehicle.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-335 (2026).
Text
(a)Each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334 against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law, with limits not less than those specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112, for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person and injury to or destruction of property arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a specific motor vehicle or motor vehicles within any state, territory, or possession of the United States of America or Canada.
(b)Each automobile liability insurance policy issued, renewed, amended or endorsed on or after October 1, 1988, and covering a private passenger motor vehicle as defined in subsection (e) of section 38a-363 , shall contain or have attache
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Progressive Nw v. Monserrate Rivera, No. Cv-00-0802973 S (Sep. 25, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13083 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Excel Logistics v. Maryland Casualty Co., No. Cv 93 0046415 S (Feb. 1, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1079-BBB (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Kaminski v. Reed, No. Cv 99 0152814 (Dec. 12, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16486 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Miller v. Nationwide Insurance Company, No. Cv99-0431545s (Jun. 29, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 7877 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Benitez v. Good2Go Insurance, Inc.
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Legislative History
(1967, P.A. 510, S. 3; P.A. 74-30, S. 1, 2; P.A. 85-13; P.A. 88-157, S. 1; P.A. 90-243, S. 126; P.A. 99-145, S. 3, 23; P.A. 11-19, S. 4.) History: P.A. 74-30 clarified applicability re geographical location in Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b); P.A. 85-13 added Subsec. (c), clarifying the applicability of the bodily injury and property damage liability provisions; P.A. 88-157 inserted new Subsec. (b) requiring statement of whether policy provides coverage for rented motor vehicle and the extent of such coverage, relettering existing Subsecs. as necessary; P.A. 90-243 added a reference to “each automobile liability insurance policy” and made technical changes for statutory consistency; Sec. 38-175b transferred to Sec. 38a-335 in 1991; P.A. 99-145 amended Subsec. (b) to substitute “subsection (e) of section 38a-363” for “subsection (g) of section 38a-363”, effective June 8, 1999; P.A. 11-19 made technical changes in Subsec. (d). Annotations to former section 38-175b: Cited. 160 C. 280. Regulations under statute make “other insurance” clauses in conflict with the regulations. 161 C. 169. Cited. 169 C. 502; overruled with respect to holding an uninsured motorist coverage, see 219 C. 371; 171 C. 252; Id., 463; 187 C. 386; 203 C. 45; Id., 258; Id., 305. Cited. 31 CS 229; 36 CS 256. Annotations to present section: Cited. 225 C. 257; 234 C. 182. Cited. 25 CA 492; judgment reversed, see 222 C. 744; 34 CA 679; 41 CA 632; 45 CA 630. Subsec. (c): In action for underinsured motorist benefits, since jury verdict was less than amount insured had already recovered from tortfeasor, insured not entitled to recover any additional damages because to do so would result in impermissible double recovery. 49 CA 306. Subsec. (d): Statute is not an absolute prohibition on household exclusions, but merely requires notice and acceptance by insured of an endorsement that specifically excludes relatives residing in the household of the named insured; statute prescribes a process by which such exclusions must be executed to be valid. 282 C. 454. Under 2009 revision, trial court improperly held that exclusion was valid, as that exclusion was not set forth in an endorsement as clearly and unambiguously required by Subsec., but rather, was listed among other exclusions in the body of the policy itself. 320 C. 205.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 38a-1000
Applicability.§ 38a-1001
Definitions.§ 38a-1005
Examination of group. Costs.§ 38a-1006
Group board of trustees.§ 38a-1011
Taxes.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 38a-335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/38a-335.