The Superior Court of Connecticut, applying Connecticut law, has held that the question of whether a professional liability policy’s prior knowledge exclusion barred coverage for a malpractice action is an issue for the trier of fact. Mark J. Capecelatro LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2026 WL 751724 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2026). The court further held that the application of the exclusion turned on whether a reasonable professional in the insured’s shoes would have anticipated that a claim would arise.
In 2021, the insured attorney’s client asked the attorney to revise the client’s will to leave his entire estate to a single beneficiary. The attorney visited his client in the hospital to execute the revised will, but COVID-19 protocols at the time only allowed one visitor, and the will was thus executed with a single witness. After the client passed away, the probate court refused to admit the revised will because it did not have two witnesses, and the court instead admitted a prior version which left the deceased’s estate to charitable organizations. The intended beneficiary sued the attorney in 2024, and after the attorney notified his professional liability insurer, the insurer denied coverage for the claim under the policy’s prior knowledge exclusion, asserting that the attorney had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim but failed to disclose those facts prior to the 2024 policy period’s inception.
The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, finding that a genuine dispute of fact existed. In analyzing the policy’s prior knowledge exclusion, the court applied a two-pronged test that considered whether (1) the insured had actual knowledge of facts constituting a wrongful act, and (2) a reasonable professional in the insured’s shoes would have anticipated a claim or suit to result from those facts.
The court concluded that the subjective prong was met, as there was no dispute that the attorney knew that the revised will was rejected by the probate court and that the intended beneficiary received less under the original will than he would have received under the revised will. As to the objective prong, however, the court determined that there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether a reasonable attorney in the insured’s shoes would have anticipated a claim or suit to arise from these facts. The court noted that the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in normal business operations, including preventing the insured from bringing a second witness into his client’s hospital room. Whether the prior knowledge exclusion barred coverage was therefore a matter for the trier of fact to decide.
[View source.]
