On February 12, 1992, Buddy Cage was assisting a person who was taking a horse riding lesson on the premises of The Hunt Club. While walking through a barn hallway, Cage was injured when a bale of hay thrown by a Hunt Club employee struck him on his head. Buddy filed suit against the club. The club filed a claim under their farmowners policy issued by Litchfield Mutual Insurance. The company denied the claim since their policy contained an endorsement that excluded any damages related to the ownership, maintenance or use of horses and similar animals. However, the company did defend the club after reserving its rights to investigate the claim. A court awarded Cage $95,000 in damages.

The club assigned their interest in the policy to Cage who filed suit against the company. The company filed for a declaratory judgment to confirm that their policy exclusion relieved them of the obligation to pay the award. Other pertinent facts concerning this case include the following:

• at the time of the loss, the exclusion was not, technically, filed with the insurance department. The insurance department and the company had corresponded about the exclusion when it was originally filed in 1980. However, by oversight on the part of both parties, the issue wasn't addressed until 1995 when the exclusion was officially filed a second time.
• the insurance department approved the filing (as of the second filing date) and it also permitted the company to continue use of the exclusion on its existing policies.
• there was no statutory or administrative penalty associated with the use of a policy or form which had not received the insurance department's approval.
• the Hunt Club's insurance agent generally purchased a separate Horse Stable Liability Insurance Policy to handle losses arising from the Club's horse operation, but he was unable to find such coverage during the 1991-1992 policy period (the time in which the injury to Cage occurred).
• the Club routinely issued two separate premium checks to the agent for the separate policies.

The trial court ruled that the exclusion was valid, even though it had not been approved. Since the exclusion was applicable, the insurer was not obligated to indemnify Cage. Upon appeal, the appellant court determined that, since the plaintiff never raised the question concerning the exclusion's status as an unfiled form, it could not be considered in the appeal. The court determined that the exclusion clearly barred coverage for liability arising out incidents related to horses and it affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the insurer.

Cage v. Litchfield Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Superior Court of Connecticut, 1997 45 Conn.Super. 298, 713 A.2d 281 AAHS website: http://www.law.utexas.edu/dawson/index.htm.