Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-335 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 38-175b). Minimum coverages. Applicability. Statement of coverage for rented motor vehicle

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(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 attached thereto a conspicuous statement specifying whether the policy provides liability, collision or comprehensive coverage for damage to a rented private passenger motor vehicle and, where the policy provides such coverage, the limit of coverage provided and whether any deductible amount applies.

(c) Each automobile liability insurance policy issued, renewed, amended or endorsed on or after April 8, 1974, shall provide that if the provisions of the motor vehicle financial responsibility law or the motor vehicle compulsory insurance law or any similar law of any state, territory or possession of the United States of America or any Province of Canada, require insurance with respect to the operation or use of the motor vehicle in such state, territory, possession or province and such insurance requirements are greater than the insurance provided by the policy, the limits of the company's liability and the kinds of coverage afforded by the policy shall be as set forth in such law, in lieu of the insurance otherwise provided by the policy, but only to the extent required by such law and only with respect to the operation or use of the motor vehicle in such state, territory, possession or province; provided the insurance under this subsection shall be reduced to the extent that there is other valid and collectible insurance under such policy or any other motor vehicle insurance policy. In no event shall any person be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same element of loss.

(d) With respect to the insured motor vehicle, the coverage afforded under the bodily injury liability and property damage liability provisions in any such policy shall apply to the named insured and relatives residing in such insured's household unless any such relative is specifically excluded by endorsement.

(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.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Am. States Ins. v. Allstate Ins., 922 A.2d 1043 (Conn. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. States Ins. v. Allstate Ins., 922 A.2d 1043 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 11× “The defendant had denied coverage on the basis of this household exclu *459 sion, which is valid under Florida law, 4 but was drafted in a manner that likely would not satisfy the requirements of General Statutes § 38a-335 (d), which provides in relevant part that “the coverage…”

Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 905 A.2d 623 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 38a-335 (prescribing minimum coverage for insurance policies); General Statutes § 42a-2-314 (prescribing warranty of merchantability as implied term of contract); General Statutes § 42a-2-315 (prescribing implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose).”

Middlesex Ins. v. Quinn, 622 A.2d 572 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 38a-335 (a) and (d). Because the driver was not a “covered person” under the liability section of the policy, the insurer was not liable for the injuries he caused and the plaintiff could not recover damages under the policy.”

Hunte v. Amica Mut. Ins., 792 A.2d 132 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “of America, supra, 309-10; see also General Statutes § 38a-335 (c) (“[i]n no event shall any person be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same element of loss”).”

Jones v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Companies, 738 N.W.2d 840 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 10-4-620 (West 2006); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 38a-335 (West 2000); Del.”

Boynton v. City of New Haven, 779 A.2d 186 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 3× “to 1993) §§ 38a-335 (a) 16 and 38a-336 (a) (2). The city, relying on the former, and the plaintiff, relying on the latter, look to these sections for answers to the thorny and disputed question of how much underinsured motorist coverage the city must provide.”

Connecticut Car Rental, Inc. v. Patla, 677 A.2d 967 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 8× “” General Statutes § 38a-335 (b) provides: “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 (g) of section 38a-363, shall contain or have attached…”

Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. v. Hertz Corp., 923 A.2d 673 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Thus, in choosing and being approved for self-insurance, Hertz has demonstrated that, in accordance with General Statutes § 38a-335, 11 it independently maintains funds suffi *546 cient to insure the minimum liability coverage imposed by Connecticut law on its vehicles.”

Tannone v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 189 A.3d 99 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 38a-335 (a). The legislature understood that some motorists will not comply with this law, however.”

Hvt, Inc. v. Law, 16 A.3d 686 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “properly insured car benefits: (1) the lessee by financially protecting the lessee in the event the lessee becomes financially liable for some harm to property or another person, regardless of which vehicle the lessee is driving; and (2) the owner and lessor, by likewise…”

Willoughby v. City of New Haven, 757 A.2d 1083 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 14-15b (“[m]otor vehicle rental contracts”); General Statutes § 14-213b (“[o]peration prohibited when insurance coverage fails to meet minimum requirements”); General Statutes § 38a-9 (b) (1) (“arbitration procedure for the settlement of disputes between claimants and…”

Fahey v. Safeco Ins. of Am., 714 A.2d 686 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 38a-335 (c), which sets forth minimum policy provisions for automobile liability policies, provides in part that “[i]n no event shall any person be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same element of loss.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-335(d) — 1 case

Benitez v. Good2Go Ins., Inc. (D. Conn. 2021).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.