Telamon Corp. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-insurance companies’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-insured’s action seeking declaration that one or both of defendant’s insurance policies covered plaintiff’s over $5 million loss arising out of theft by one of its vice-presidents. One policy covered theft by plaintiff’s “employee,” but vice-president responsible for said theft did not meet policy’s definition of “employee,” since, although plaintiff and third-party company had contract calling for plaintiff’s right to use vice-president’s labor, record showed that third-party company was mere alter-ego of vice-president. As such, third-party company was not “labor-leasing firm” that was required under terms of policy for vice-president to be deemed “employee.” Moreover, terms of other policy specifically excluded losses incurred by plaintiff’s “authorized representative” or anyone else to whom plaintiff had entrusted its property, and record showed that actions of vice-president fell within this exclusion, where vice-president pocketed proceeds of company property to which vice-president had been placed in charge.