author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Dominic Fulco v. The Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation
    (14609)
    Peters, C. J., Callahan, Berdon, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued June 9
    decision released July 13, 1993

      Joseph T. Sweeney, with whom was James M. Sconzo, for the appellant (defendant).

      Dominic Fulco III, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

In this appeal concerning the applicability of the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 31-284 (a), we granted certification to consider whether the Appellate Court had improperly concluded that the plaintiff had not suffered a job related injury when he was discharged in a manner that allegedly caused him emotional distress. We dismiss the appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The opinion of the Appellate Court; Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, 27 Conn. App. 800, 609 A.2d 1034 (1992); discloses the relevant history. The defendant, The Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, hired the plaintiff, Dominic Fulco, to be its director of finance in 1985 and discharged him in 1989. Id., 802. The plaintiff filed a multicount complaint claiming that he was entitled to recover damages: (1) on contractual and statutory grounds arising out of unused and uncompensated vacation days; and (2) for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the manner of his discharge. Id. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings in favor of the defendant with regard to issues arising out of the unused vacation days, but reversed the trial court’s ruling that the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id., 810.

The Appellate Court’s decision was based on its application of the guidelines set forth in McNamara v. Hamden, 176 Conn. 547, 556, 398 A.2d 1161 (1979), for the determination of whether an employee’s injuries are work related. Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, supra, 807. The court concluded that emotional distress caused by the manner of an employee’s discharge is not a work related personal injury. Id., 808-809. The court held, therefore, that “[t]he allegations of the plaintiffs complaint, if true, demonstrate that the plaintiff was neither within the period of his employment nor reasonably fulfilling the duties of employment or doing something incidental to it when he sustained his alleged injury.” Id., 808. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s common law cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress was not barred by § 31-284 (a), the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Id., 810.

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The underlying issues have been fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See Farmington v. Dowling, 224 Conn. 592, 593, 619 A.2d 852 (1993); Esposito v. Planning Commission, 202 Conn. 404, 521 A.2d 565 (1987).

The appeal is dismissed.

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 31-284 (a) provides in relevant part: “An employer shall not be liable to any action for damages on account of personal injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment . . . but an employer shall secure compensation for his employees .... All rights and claims between employer and employees . . . arising out of personal injury . . . sustained in the course of employment as aforesaid are abolished other than rights and claims given by this chapter . . . .”

       We granted the defendant permission to appeal the following certified issue: “In the circumstances of this case, was the plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-284 (a)?” Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, 223 Conn. 917, 614 A.2d 821 (1992).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Palmer, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Timber Trails Associates v. Town of New Fairfield Timber Trails Associates v. Town of Sherman
    (14719)
    (14723)
    Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued May 6
    decision released July 13, 1993

      Michael N. LaVelle, for the appellants (defendants).

      Henry W. Pascarella, with whom, on the brief, was Barry C. Hawkins, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Palmer, J.

This appeal requires us to decide whether municipal tax assessors may declassify property as forest land upon the transfer of the property, pursuant to a corporate dissolution, from a corporation to its sole shareholder without consideration. The trial court concluded that the distribution of assets from the dissolved corporation did not authorize declassification of the property and sustained the plaintiffs tax appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parties do not dispute the underlying facts relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff, Timber Trails Associates, is the owner of 281 acres in the town of New Fairfield, and 673.2 acres in the town of Sherman. In the early 1970s, upon application by Timber Trails Corporation (corporation), the plaintiffs predecessor in title, the state forester had classified these two abutting parcels as forest land pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107d. In 1988, the corporation was dissolved and transferred all of its assets, including the forest land, to the plaintiff, the only stockholder of the corporation. The real estate conveyance statements provided that no consideration had been received for the deeds, and neither town clerk collected a conveyance tax.

The state forester, upon notification of the change of the owner of record of the property, issued to the plaintiff a certificate that continued the designation of the parcels as forest land. Because the state forester had continued the property’s designation as forest land, the plaintiff did not apply for classification of the parcels as forest land on the assessment lists of the defendants. The defendants maintained that the transfer of the land from the corporation to the plaintiff had terminated the classification of the property as forest land under General Statutes § 12-504h. The assessors subsequently declassified the parcels and changed the basis of the property’s assessment from current use value to fair market value pursuant to General Statutes § 12-63. The New Fairfield and Sherman parcels had been assessed as forest land with current use values of $19,495 and $67,320, respectively, and were reassessed after the declassification at $606,140 and $1,975,700, respectively. As a result, the property tax levied on the New Fairfield parcel increased from $791.50 to $24,609.28, and the property tax on the Sherman parcel increased from $807.84 to $23,710. The plaintiff appealed the assessments of the land to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119. The court sustained both appeals, concluding that the land had remained classified as forest land for assessment purposes because the assessors lacked the authority to declassify it. In this court the defendants claim that: (1) the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiff could appeal directly to it without first appealing to the defendants’ boards of tax review; and (2) § 12-504h did not permit the defendants to declassify the property as forest land upon its transfer without consideration pursuant to the corporate dissolution.

I

The defendants contend initially that the plaintiff was required to appeal the assessors’ decisions on the declassification of the forest land to the boards of tax review pursuant to General Statutes § 12-111 before appealing to the Superior Court pursuant to Public Acts 1991, No. 91-221, § 4 (P.A. 91-221). We disagree.

General Statutes § 12-107d (g) provides that “[a]n owner of land aggrieved by the denial of any application to the assessor of a municipality for classification of land as forest land shall have the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of tax review.” Section 12-111 authorizes “any person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors” to appeal to the board of tax review; see Marshall v. Newington, 156 Conn. 107, 114, 239 A.2d 478 (1968); and, at the time in question, P.A. 91-221, § 4 (now codified at General Statutes § 12-117a), authorized an appeal to the Superior Court “by any person claiming to be aggrieved by an action of the board of tax review.” Marshall v. Newington, supra; see also Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. Wallingford, 212 Conn. 639, 649-50, 563 A.2d 688 (1989). The defendants argue that because the plaintiff was aggrieved by the assessors’ recalculation of the property taxes on the basis of fair market value, the plaintiff’s remedy was an appeal to each defendant’s board of tax review pursuant to § 12-111. The defendants contend that because the plaintiff could appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to P.A. 91-221, § 4, only upon an adverse decision by a board of tax review, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s direct appeal from the actions of the town assessors.

Neither § 12-111 nor P.A. 91-221, § 4, proscribes, however, an appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to § 12-119 in a proper case. Section 12-119 expressly provides that an owner may appeal to the Superior Court “a tax laid on property . . . computed on an assessment which, under all the circumstances, was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property . . . .” See also Second Stone Ridge Cooperative Corporation v. Bridgeport, 220 Conn. 335, 341-42, 597 A.2d 326 (1991), and cases cited therein. The plaintiff claims that the defendants disregarded the statutory provisions entitling the plaintiff to the continued designation of the parcels as forest land, and that, therefore, the defendants’ calculation of the property taxes on the basis of fair market value rather than current use value was improper. The assessors’ alleged improper valuations resulted in a tax assessment by each defendant that is approximately thirty times greater than the plaintiff had been required to pay prior to the declassification of the property. Because the plaintiff has claimed that the assessments were both “manifestly excessive” and “arrived at . . . by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property,” the plaintiffs appeals directly to the Superior Court pursuant to § 12-119 were proper.

II

A

The defendants next argue that the trial court improperly concluded that General Statutes § 12-504h did not permit them to declassify forest land that had been transferred without consideration pursuant to a corporate dissolution. This claim is not supported, however, by the plain language of § 12-504h, which provides that once property has been classified as forest land pursuant to § 12-107d, it “shall remain so classified without the filing of any new application subsequent to such classification . . . until either of the following shall occur: (1) The use of such land is changed to a use other than that described in the application for the existing classification by [the] record owner, or (2) such land is sold by [the] record owner.” The property could not have been reclassified pursuant to § 12-504h (1), because it is undisputed that the use of the land has not changed. Nor would reclassification of the property have been permitted under § 12-504h (2), because the land was not “sold” by the corporation to the plaintiff. In this context, “sold” means more than “conveyed.” A “sale” of property is a “transfer of the absolute title therein for a price” (Emphasis added.) Guilford-Chester Water Co. v. Guilford, 107 Conn. 519, 527, 141 A. 880 (1928). On the other hand, to “convey” real estate means simply “to transfer the legal title to it from the present owner to another [by an appropriate instrument].” Abendroth v. Greenwich, 29 Conn. 356, 365 (1860). Because the corporation transferred the forest land to the plaintiff for no consideration, the trial court properly concluded that the property had not been “sold by [the] record owner” as required by § 12-504h (2).

The defendants contend also that General Statutes §§ 12-504a, 12-504b and 12-504c allow termination of the forest land classification on other grounds. We are not persuaded.

Section 12-504a (b) provides for a conveyance tax on any land classified as forest land that is sold within ten years of classification or acquisition, and the recording of the deed and payment of the conveyance tax triggers the automatic declassification of the land pursuant to § 12-504b. The defendants conceded, however, that § 12-504a (b) does not apply to a conveyance after the ten year recapture period expires. The trial court properly concluded, therefore, that, because the land had been classified as forest land for more than ten years prior to the dissolution of the corporation, § 12-504a (b) is inapposite in these circumstances. Section 12-504b requires the payment of the conveyance tax prior to the recording of the deed for the sale of forest land. Because the transfer in the present case, however, was not subject to the conveyance tax, § 12-504b does not apply.

Section 12-504c identifies exemptions to the conveyance tax required by § 12-504a. The defendants argue that the transfer of real property for no consideration in connection with a corporate dissolution is not one of the several exemptions specified in the statute and that the assessors, therefore, could properly have declassified the parcels. Because no conveyance tax was due pursuant to § 12-504a, however, the issue of exemptions under § 12-504c is irrelevant to our analysis. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly determined that § 12-504h rather than §§ 12-504a, 12-504b or 12-504c applied in these circumstances.

B

The defendants’ final contention is that the transfers of the property from the corporation to the plaintiff automatically terminated the property’s forest land classification pursuant to § 12-504Í, which provides that a classification of property as forest land “shall be deemed personal to the particular owner who requests such classification and shall not run with the land.” The defendants argue that the claimed termination of the classification of property as forest land required the plaintiff to file a new application with the defendants for assessment purposes pursuant to § 12-107d. Section 12-504f, however, concerns the issuance and recording of certificates identifying property as forest land for the purpose of the “obligation to pay the conveyance tax imposed by this chapter.” In light of our conclusion that no conveyance tax was due pursuant to § 12-504a (b), § 12-504f is inapposite.

The construction of § 12-504f urged by the defendants, moreover, conflicts with the plain language of § 12-504h, which provides that land classified as forest land remains so classified “without the filing of any new application subsequent to such classification” until either the use of the land is changed or the land is sold. Neither condition had occurred and the state forester had continued the designation of the property as forest land after the transfer of the property to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the assessors were required to continue the classification of the property as forest land for assessment purposes pursuant to § 12-107d (c).

Accordingly, we conclude that the state forester properly continued the property’s forest land designation pursuant to the unambiguous direction of § 12-504h and that the defendants were without authority to declassify it. Because the reassessments of the property based upon the improper declassifications were manifestly excessive, the trial court properly sustained the plaintiffs appeals pursuant to § 12-119.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       The defendants each appealed to the Appellate Court and the town of New Fairfield subsequently moved that the appeals be consolidated. The Appellate Court granted the motion and we transferred the appeals to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

       General Statutes § 12-107d provides in relevant part: “(a) An owner of land may file a written application with the state forester for its designation by the state forester as forest land. When such application has been made, the state forester shall examine such application and, if he determines that it is forest land, he shall issue a triplicate certificate designating it as such, and file one copy of such certificate in his office, furnish one to the owner of the land and file one in the office of the assessor of the municipality in which the land is located.
      “(b) When the state forester finds that it is no longer forest land, he shall issue a triplicate certificate cancelling his designation of such land as forest land, and file one copy of such certificate in his office, furnish one to the owner of the land and file one in the office of such assessor.
      “(c) An owner of land designated as forest land by the state forester may apply for its classification as forest land on any assessment list of a municipality by filing a written application for such classification with the assessor of such municipality not earlier than thirty days before nor later than thirty days after the date of such assessment list and, if the state forester has not cancelled his designation of such land as forest land as of a date at or prior to the date of such assessment list, such assessor shall classify such land as forest land and include it as such on such assessment list, provided in a year in which a revaluation of all real property in accordance with section 12-62 becomes effective such application may be filed not later than ninety days after the assessment date in such year. . . .
      “(g) An owner of land aggrieved by the denial of any application to the assessor of a municipality for classification of land as forest land shall have the same rights and remedies for appeal and relief as are provided in the general statutes for taxpayers claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of assessors or boards of tax review.”

       The warranty deeds, filed in the town clerks’ offices in New Fairfield and Sherman, recited nominal consideration.

       The defendants concede that the use of the land has not changed since it was originally classified as forest land and that the property remains undeveloped.

       General Statutes § 12-504h provides in relevant part: “termination OF CLASSIFICATION AS FARM, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE LAND. Any land which has been classified by the record owner as . . . forest land pursuant to section 12-107d . . . shall remain so classified without the filing of any new application subsequent to such classification, notwithstanding the provisions of . . . [section] 12-107d . . . until either of the following shall occur: (1) The use of such land is changed to a use other than that described in the application for the existing classification by said record owner, or (2) such land is sold by said record owner.”

       General Statutes § 12-63 provides in relevant part: “rule of valuation. The present true and actual value of land classified ... as forest land pursuant to section 12-107d . . . shall be based upon its current use without regard to neighborhood land use of a more intensive nature .... The present true and actual value of all other property shall be deemed by all assessors and boards of tax review to be the fair market value thereof and not its value at a forced or auction sale.”

       General Statutes § 12-119 provides in relevant part: “When it is claimed that a tax . . . laid on property was computed on an assessment which, under all the circumstances, was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property, the owner thereof . . . prior to the payment of such tax, may, in addition to the other remedies provided by law, make application for relief to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated. ... In all such actions, the superior court shall have power to grant such relief upon such terms and in such manner and form as to justice and equity appertains, and costs may be taxed at the discretion of the court. If such assessment is reduced by said court, the applicant shall be reimbursed by the town or city for any overpayment of taxes in accordance with the judgment of said court.”

       General Statutes § 12-111 provides in relevant part: “[A]ny person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors of such town may appeal therefrom to such board of tax review, which shall determine all such appeals . . .
      In 1989, the legislature passed legislation to create a state appeals board for property tax review and amended General Statutes § 12-118 to apply to appeals from that board. The state tax review board, however, has yet to be established, and the legislature has continued the original provisions of § 12-118 by public act. The present tax appeal is governed by the provisions of Public Acts 1991, No. 91-221, § 4, as it amends Public Acts 1989, No. 89-231, § 4, and Public Acts 1990, No. 90-266, § 4. Those acts were codified in 1993 as General Statutes § 12-117a. In this opinion we refer to Public Acts 1991, No. 91-221, § 4.
      Section 4 of Public Acts 1991, No. 91-221, provides in relevant part: “[A]ny person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the board of tax review in any town or city with respect to the assessment list for the assessment year commencing . . . October 1,1990 . . . may . . . make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom, to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated .... The court shall have power to grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains, upon such terms and in such manner and form as appear equitable . . . .”

       We recognize, of course, that General Statutes § 12-119 generally is not a substitute for a timely appeal to a board of tax review pursuant to P. A. 91-221, § 4 (now codified at General Statutes § 12-117a), when a property owner seeks to contest an assessor’s alleged overvaluation. See Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. Wallingford, 212 Conn. 639, 649-50, 563 A.2d 688 (1989); E. Ingraham Co. v. Bristol, 146 Conn. 403, 408-409, 151 A.2d 700 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 929, 80 S. Ct. 367, 4 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1960). Indeed, “§ 12-119 requires an allegation that something more than mere valuation is at issue.” Second Stone Ridge Cooperative Corporation v. Bridgeport, 220 Conn. 335, 340, 597 A.2d 326 (1991); see also Connecticut Coke Co. v. New Haven, 169 Conn. 663, 674-75, 364 A.2d 178 (1975).

       General Statutes § 12-504a (b) provides in relevant part: “Any land which has been classified by the record owner ... as forest land pursuant to section 12-107d, if sold by him within a period of ten years from the time he acquired title to such land or from the time he first caused such land to be so classified, whichever is earlier, shall be subject to a conveyance tax applicable to the total sales price of such land . . . .”

       General Statutes § 12-504b provides in relevant part: “Said conveyance tax shall be due and payable by the particular grantor who caused such classification to be made to the town clerk of the town in which the property is entered upon the tax list at the time of the recording of his deed or other instrument of conveyance. . . . No deed or other instrument of conveyance which is subject to tax under sections 12-504a to 12-504Í, inclusive, shall be recorded by any town clerk unless the tax imposed by said sections has been paid. Upon the recording of such deed and the payment of the required conveyance tax such land shall be automatically declassified and the assessor shall forthwith record with the town clerk a certificate setting forth that such land has been declassified. Thereafter, such land shall be assessed at its fair market value as determined by the assessor under the provisions of section 12-63 for all other property, until such time as a record owner may reclassify such land.”

       General Statutes § 12-504c provides in relevant part: “excepted transfers. The provisions of section 12-504a shall not be applicable to the following: (a) Transfers of land resulting from eminent domain proceedings; (b) mortgage deeds; (c) deeds to or by the United States of America, state of Connecticut or any political subdivision or agency thereof; (d) straw-man deeds and deeds which correct, modify, supplement or confirm a deed previously recorded; (e) deeds between husband and wife and parent and child when no consideration is received, except that a subsequent nonexempt transfer by the grantee in such cases shall be subject to the provisions of section 12-504a as it would be if the grantor were making such nonexempt transfer; (f) tax deeds; (g) deeds releasing any property which is a security for a debt or other obligation; (h) deeds of partition; (i) deeds made pursuant to a merger of a corporation; (j) deeds made by a subsidiary corporation to its parent corporation for no consideration other than the cancellation or surrender of the capital stock of such subsidiary; (k) property transferred as a result of death by devise or otherwise and in such transfer the date of acquisition or classification of the land for purposes of sections 12-504a to 12-504Í, inclusive, whichever is earlier, shall be the date of acquisition or classification by the decedent; (l) deeds to any corporation, trust or other entity, of land to be held in perpetuity for educational, scientific, aesthetic or other equivalent passive uses, provided such corporation, trust or other entity has received a determination from the internal revenue service that contributions to it are deductible under applicable sections of the internal revenue code; and (m) land subject to a covenant specifically set forth in the deed transferring title to such land, which covenant is enforceable by the town in which such land is located, to refrain from selling or developing such land in a manner inconsistent with its classification as . . . forest land pursuant to section 12-107d . . . for a period of not less than eight years from the date of transfer, if such covenant is violated the conveyance tax set forth in this chapter shall be applicable at the rate which would have been applicable at the date the deed containing the covenant was delivered and, in addition, the town or any taxpayer therein may commence an action to enforce such covenant. If such action is taken by such a taxpayer, the town shall be served as a necessary party.”

       General Statutes § 12-504f provides in relevant part: “classification OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS . . . FOREST . . . PERSONAL TO OWNER. CERTIFICATE OF classification. The tax assessor shall file annually, not later than sixty days after the assessment date, with the town clerk a certificate for any land which has been classified ... as forest land pursuant to section 12-107d . . . which certificate shall set forth the date of the initial classification and the obligation to pay the conveyance tax imposed by this chapter. Said certificate shall be recorded in the land records of such town. Any such classification of land shall be deemed personal to the particular owner who requests such classification and shall not run with the land.”


author: Norcott, J.

text:
    Nelseco Navigation Company et al. v. Department of Liquor Control
    (14576)
    Peters, C. J., Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued April 1
    decision released July 13, 1993

      Martin Rosenfeld, assistant attorney general, with whom were Robert Vacchelli, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellant (defendant).

      Richard E. Gruskin, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Norcott, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the defendant department of liquor control has jurisdiction over a private party on premises covered by a liquor permit when there was no sale or delivery of alcoholic beverages thereon by the permittee or its agent. The defendant suspended the plaintiffs’ liquor license for five days because of a disturbance on the plaintiffs’ boat involving intoxicated persons while the boat had been chartered for a private affair. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Superior Court, Quinn, J., which upheld the defendant’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision on the ground that the defendant had no jurisdiction over a licensed premises when the premises was not involved in the sale of liquor. Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 27 Conn. App. 614, 608 A.2d 707 (1992). We then granted the defendant’s petition for certification to review the Appellate Court’s decision. We reverse.

The facts relevant to this appeal are adequately set forth in the Appellate Court’s decision; we will therefore review them only briefly. The plaintiffs chartered the M. Y. Anna C. (ship) to the Savage Brothers rock band for a private cruise to take place on August 12, 1989. Although the plaintiffs had a boat liquor permit, the charter agreement limited the plaintiffs’ responsibilities to navigation of the ship, and did not call for the plaintiffs to sell, serve or deliver any liquor or to provide any employees to sell, serve or deliver any liquor during the cruise. The ship’s liquor inventory was securely locked away from possible access, and any liquor consumed on the ship was brought aboard by the passengers.

A quiet riverboat soiree this was not. The defendant found, and the plaintiffs do not dispute, that a disturbance broke out during the cruise. The disturbance included a fist fight, assaultive conduct by some of the passengers, excessive drinking and intoxication.

Following a hearing, the defendant suspended the plaintiffs’ boat liquor permit for five days, finding that the plaintiffs had violated § 30-6-A24 (a) and (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The trial court upheld the defendant’s findings, concluded that responsibility for the disturbance remained with the plaintiffs even though the ship had been leased to a third party and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of dismissal on the ground that the defendant did not have jurisdiction over permitted premises when no liquor was available for sale thereon. The Appellate Court concluded that the defendant had overreached its authority to oversee a permittee’s conduct of its liquor business because “[t]he disturbance that occurred here was in no way related to the plaintiffs’ exercise of their privilege to dispense liquor.” Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, supra, 618.

The defendant argues that it has a continuous duty to supervise liquor premises whether or not liquor is being sold at any given point in time. The defendant argues that the liquor control laws give it broad authority to regulate, at all times, not only liquor related activities but liquor premises. We agree.

Justice William Brennan, dissenting in Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 184-85, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972), observed that “[l]iquor licensing laws are only incidentally revenue measures; they are primarily pervasive regulatory schemes under which the State dictates and continually supervises virtually every detail of the operation of the licensee’s business. Very few, if any, other licensed businesses experience such complete state involvement.” This court also has recognized that the state’s power and authority over the regulation of the liquor business is broad and pervasive. “Because of the danger to the public health and welfare inherent in the liquor traffic, the police power to regulate and control it runs broad and deep, much more so than the power to curb and direct ordinary business activity. . . . The Liquor Control Act . . . was adopted in the light of these well-recognized principles.” (Citations omitted.) Ruppert v. Liquor Control Commission, 138 Conn. 669, 674, 88 A.2d 388 (1952); see also Hing Wan Wong v. Liquor Control Commission, 160 Conn. 1, 7, 273 A.2d 709 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S. Ct. 931, 28 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1971); Aminti v. Liquor Control Commission, 144 Conn. 550, 552, 135 A.2d 595 (1957). To ensure compliance with the Liquor Control Act; General Statutes §§ 30-1 through 30-113; the department of liquor control is given broad supervisory and disciplinary powers. D. Brennan, “Liquor Control,” 54 Conn. B.J. 611, 618 (1980).

The Appellate Court reasoned that “the mere fact that the plaintiffs had a permit, pursuant to which they sold liquor on other occasions, did not extend the defendant’s jurisdiction to this nonliquor charter.” Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Con trol, supra, 618-19. The Appellate Court relied on the fact that the defendant would not have jurisdiction over similar private parties on nonlicensed ships. It interpreted the defendant’s authority as dependent on the conduct transpiring on licensed premises at a particular time, rather than as encompassing the premises themselves, and concluded that a permittee can at times remove the premises from the defendant’s jurisdiction by virtue of the activities occurring thereon. Id., 619-20. This construction of the defendant’s jurisdiction is too restrictive.

The defendant derives its powers from General Statutes § 30-6, which enables it to enforce the provisions of the Liquor Control Act. The express language of § 30-6 establishes that the defendant shall have the authority for “enforcing and preventing violation of all or any of the provisions of [the act], for the inspection of permit premises, for insuring sanitary conditions, for insuring proper, safe and orderly conduct of licensed premises and for protecting the public against fraud or overcharge.” (Emphasis added.) The plain language of the statute, therefore, extends to the defendant the authority to control licensed premises. “Where the language of the statute is unambiguous, we are confined to the intention expressed in the actual words used and we will not search out any further intention of the legislature not expressed in the statute.” Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 194, 198, 438 A.2d 1178 (1981).

Neither § 30-6 nor other provisions of the act provide for exceptions wherein premises subject to a liquor permit escape the defendant’s supervisory authority, depending on the time of day or whether liquor is actually sold. In fact, other provisions of the act indicate that the defendant’s plenary power is not limited to business hours or to the sale of liquor, and that the legislature intended to confer on the defendant the authority to police a wide range of matters related to the liquor business. See, e.g., General Statutes § 30-106 (“[t]he department of liquor control . . . may, at any time, enter upon the premises of any permittee to ascertain the manner in which such person conducts his business and to preserve order” [emphasis added]); General Statutes § 30-55a (b) (department of liquor control can suspend a permit for premises emitting noise exceeding standard established by department of environmental protection); General Statutes § 30-91 (defining days and hours when liquor cannot be sold); General Statutes § 30-95 (defining proper means of advertising the sale of liquor); General Statutes § 30-48 (restricting the acquisition of interest in retail liquor permits by any one permittee or backer).

Moreover, “we have elsewhere recognized that the legislature’s broad grant of power may be interpreted to include the conferral of such lesser included powers as are necessary to fulfill a legislative mandate. See Bottone v. Westport, 209 Conn. 652, 670, 553 A.2d 576 (1989).” Daly v. DelPonte, 225 Conn. 499, 510, 624 A.2d 876 (1993). We consider the legislature’s conferral of power to the defendant to ensure the “safe and orderly conduct of licensed premises”; General Statutes § 30-6; to include the power to regulate the premises even when liquor is not being served. “Because the legislature is always presumed to have created a harmonious and consistent body of law”; id.; the proper construction of any statute must take into account the mandates of related statutes governing the same general subject matter.” When we compare the statutory provisions reflecting the numerous matters over which the defendant has jurisdiction, we cannot conclude that the defendant lacks jurisdiction under § 30-6 to police disturbances and brawls in places where a permit has been granted, without regard to whether the premises are opened for business in the traditional sense.

The state of Connecticut has exercised practically every available measure of control over the liquor industry while, in the words of one commentator, “preserving a private enterprise system.” D. Brennan, supra, 619. Control over the business of liquor includes control over the premises that have been granted the privilege of selling liquor. It is not only the transaction of business involving liquor, but the site on which that business is generally transacted, that is subject to the defendant’s authority.

The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendant would have no authority over the plethora of private parties on unlicensed ships that may abound on Long Island Sound on any given day. We disagree, however, when it further suggests that the hypothetical case of the unlicensed private charter requires that we find that the defendant has no authority over similar parties on licensed vessels. When the plaintiffs obtained their liquor permit, the defendant became an active participant in the operation of the ship. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, supra. An essential aspect of that partnership is the conduct of the premises themselves. The defendant’s statutory authority over conduct on the premises continues as long as a permittee has a liquor permit. The permit carries with it an obligation to assure that the premises will be used for purposes consistent with the act at all times. In this regard, the Appellate Court’s conclusion that the defendant’s responsibility is solely related to the control of the sale of liquor is untenable.

We conclude, therefore, that the defendant had jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the act in the context of a private party on premises covered by a liquor permit, when there was no sale or delivery of alcoholic beverages thereon by the permittee or its agent. Whether the trial court correctly affirmed the defendant’s ruling that violations occurred on the privately chartered vessel is an issue that was never reached by the Appellate Court, and is therefore not before us today. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court for a resolution of those issues.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       The plaintiffs in this appeal are the Nelseco Navigation Company, a Connecticut corporation, and its president, John R. Wronowski. Nelseco was the backer and John Wronowski was the permittee. Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 27 Conn. App. 614, 608 A.2d 707 (1992).

       Because the Appellate Court concluded that the defendant lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ premises in this case, it did not reach the other issues before it. The plaintiffs also had appealed to the Appellate Court the issues of: (1) whether the defendant had acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion as a matter of law; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s right to due process had been violated. Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 27 Conn. App. 614, 615, 608 A.2d 707 (1992).

       We certified the following question: “Does the department of liquor control have jurisdiction to police a private party on premises covered by a liquor permit, when there was no sale or delivery of alcoholic beverages thereon by the permittee or its agent?” Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 223 Conn. 908, 612 A.2d 56 (1992).

       General Statutes § 30-29 provides: “[A] boat permit shall allow the sale and public consumption of alcoholic liquor by passengers with or without meals upon any one designated boat engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire to or from any port in this state.”

       Section 30-6-A24 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides in pertinent part: “(a) No disturbances, brawls, unnecessary noises, including loud and disturbing music, [or] unlawful conduct . . . shall be permitted or suffered upon any permit premises, nor shall such premises be conducted in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance. . . .
      “(c) No permittee or his servant or agent shall conduct the permit premises in such a manner as to allow an intoxicated person or persons to loiter thereon.”

       The defendant derives its power from General Statutes § 30-6, which provides in pertinent part: “(a) There shall be a department of liquor control. The department of liquor control shall have power to enforce the provisions of this chapter, and may make all necessary regulations, subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, for that purpose and for carrying out, enforcing and preventing violation of all or any of the provisions of this chapter, for the inspection of permit premises, for insuring sanitary conditions, for insuring proper, safe and orderly conduct of licensed premises and for protecting the public against fraud or overcharge. . . . It shall have power generally to do whatever is reasonably necessary for the carrying out of the intent of this chapter . . . .”

       The regulations of the department of liquor control, promulgated by the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 30-6 (a), also reflect the defendant’s position that premises are subject to the defendant’s continuous jurisdiction as long as the permittee retains a liquor permit. One commentator has noted the myriad of subjects that come under the purview of the defendant’s jurisdiction, including “[sjanitation, fire safety, conduct on premises, vending machines, invoices, books, rubber stamps, the furnishing of samples, salaries, bonuses, commissions, expenses and much more.” D. Brennan, “Liquor Control,” 54 Conn. B.J. 611, 618 (1980). Also, § 30-6-A24 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies specifically addresses the conduct of permit premises. See footnote 5. The range of subjects covered by these regulations, many going solely to the management of permit premises, is reflective of the defendant’s interpretation of its authority as encompassing not just the conduct of the liquor business but the conduct of the liquor premises as well.

       The Appellate Court cites the case of Moore v. Connecticut Liquor Control Commission, 36 Conn. Sup. 305, 314-15, 418 A.2d 955 (1980), for the proposition that the defendant’s jurisdiction is restricted to the control of the sale of liquor. In Moore, however, the trial court reached the question of an alleged violation of the act only after it had determined that the defendant had jurisdiction over the premises involved. The court ultimately reasoned that to uphold the defendant’s suspension of the plaintiff’s permit would constitute an erosion of first amendment rights involving the freedom of artistic expression.

       See footnote 2.


author: Palmer, J. Berdon, J.,

text:
    Donald R. Kent, Administrator (Estate of Melissa Kent), et al. v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company
    (14641)
    Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued March 23
    decision released July 13, 1993

      Jon S. Berk, with whom was Claudia A. Baio, for the appellant (defendant).

      Susan M. Cormier, with whom were Leonard I. Shankman and, on the brief, Wesley W. Horton, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Palmer, J.

This case requires us to decide whether General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175C entitles an insured to aggregate the underinsured motorist coverage for two vehicles covered under one automobile liability insurance policy if the insured had paid an actuarially appropriate single premium for the underinsured motorist coverage and the policy language expressly excludes the aggregation of coverage. This issue was referred initially to an arbitration panel pursuant to the terms of the policy. A majority of that panel determined that, in the circumstances of this case, the underinsured motorist coverage on the two vehicles could not be aggregated, or “stacked.” The trial court subsequently granted the application of the plaintiffs, Donald and Kristine Kent as administrators of the estate of Melissa F. Kent, to vacate the award of the arbitration panel. The defendant, Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company, appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The parties stipulated to the following facts. The plaintiffs are the named insureds on an automobile liability policy issued by the defendant. On October 13, 1990, the decedent, an insured within the policy’s coverage for underinsured motorist benefits, was killed in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of an underinsured third party. The decedent’s estate recovered $20,000 from the liability insurer of the negligent driver, thereby exhausting the coverage limits of the tortfeasor’s policy. At the time of the accident, the plaintiffs were covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant on the plaintiffs’ two vehicles. Under that policy, the defendant agreed to pay all sums that the insureds would be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner of an underinsured vehicle due to any injuries sustained by an insured as a result of an accident arising out of the use of the underinsured vehicle. The policy provided underinsured motorist limits in the amounts of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The defendant concedes that the damages resulting from the fatal injuries sustained by the decedent exceed $200,000. Throughout these proceedings, the plaintiffs have contended that the coverage of $100,000 per person is properly aggregated for each of the two insured vehicles so that the defendant is obligated to provide underinsured motorist coverage of $200,000 per person. The defendant has argued, to the contrary, that stacking is not mandated because the insureds had paid a single, actuarially appropriate premium for underinsured motorist benefits in the amounts of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The defendant relies also on the language of the declarations page of the policy and the insurance application form, which specifies that the maximum benefit available is $100,000.

A majority of the arbitration panel determined that the defendant’s policy provided underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person and concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any additional payment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court concluded that the arbitrators had improperly determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to aggregate their underinsured motorist coverage for the purpose of determining the total available amount of such coverage, and therefore vacated the award. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly applied the principles of intrapolicy stacking to this case and seeks reinstatement of the arbitrators’ award. The gravamen of the defendant’s argument is that the plaintiffs, who received the benefit for which they had paid, could not reasonably have expected aggregated coverage.

We must consider again the applicability of intrapolicy stacking principles to specific facts and circumstances. See Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., 213 Conn. 525, 530, 569 A.2d 541 (1990); Dixon v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., 189 Conn. 449, 453, 456 A.2d 335 (1983); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 394-97, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 333-35, 387 A.2d 539 (1978). We have repeatedly held that General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) §§ 38-175a and 38-175c, and § 38-175a-6 (a), now § 38a-334-6, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which mandate that automobile liability insurance polices include underinsured motorist coverage, do not prohibit the stacking of underinsured motorist coverage for more than one passenger automobile. Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30, 35, 594 A.2d 977 (1991); Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 529; Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 211 Conn. 640, 645-46, 560 A.2d 964 (1989); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, 201 Conn. 478, 481-82, 518 A.2d 373 (1986); Dixon v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 452-53; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, supra, 332-33; see also Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 448-53, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976). Indeed, we have found stacking to be available when the insured has paid separate premiums for the underinsured motorist coverage afforded to each vehicle. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, supra, 333-35; see also Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 447. “The reason for this is the common sense notion that such a result falls within the reasonable expectations of the parties to the insurance contract”; Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra; because an insured who “ ‘pay[s] a double premium [can reasonably] expect double coverage. . . .’ ” Yacobacci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Conn. Sup. 229, 231, 372 A.2d 987 (1976); see Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra, 396. We have noted that “[t]his is particularly true when each of the insured vehicles is separately described, the coverage granted under the policy is separately listed for each vehicle, and a separate premium is charged for the coverage afforded to each of the described vehicles.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 530; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra, 395. Moreover, once it has been established that an insurer is obligated to stack the underinsured motorist coverage in the policy, as it is when separate, additional premiums have been paid for coverage on two vehicles, the insurer may not reduce its liability for such aggregated coverage even through explicit policy language, except within the narrow context of the exceptions permitted under § 38-175a-6 (d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra; Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, supra, 483-84; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra, 397-400. In the present case, the defendant argues that it is not liable to pay the aggregate amount of the underinsured coverage and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that coverage would be aggregated because the policy provides that such stacking is not permitted and the insureds were charged and paid a single actuarially appropriate premium for underinsured motorist coverage on their own vehicles. For the following reasons, we agree with the defendant.

On the basis of the testimony at the arbitration hearing and a review of the policy documents and stipulated facts, a majority of the arbitrators found that the plaintiffs could not have had an objectively reasonable expectation of stacked coverage. With respect to the testimony, the plaintiffs professed no expectation of stacked coverage. Instead, they candidly admitted that they simply were seeking to “obtain good coverage” and “save a few dollars.” As the panel concluded, their testimony “provide[d] no basis for a finding of any expectation regarding stacking of [underinsured motorist] coverage.”

The policy documents also fail to support the claim that the parties reasonably expected stacked coverage, for, as the arbitrators found, the policy “unambiguously providefd] uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage of $100,000 per person and no more.” Specifically, the named plaintiff signed the application for insurance immediately following the statement: “I understand and acknowledge that the limits of UNINSURED or UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE are applicable ONCE per claim regardless of the number of vehicles or operators on the policy now or in the future.” In addition, the automobile policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs provided in part:

“LIMIT OF LIABILITY
The maximum limit of our liability for Uninsured Motorists Coverage in any one accident is the amount of Uninsured Motorists Coverage limits shown in the Declarations. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:
1. Covered persons
2. Claims made;
3. Vehicles involved in the accident; or
4. Covered autos.” (Emphasis in original.)

Moreover, the declarations page of the insurance policy specified the limits of coverages and premiums due. Although separate premiums are listed for each of the two vehicles insured by the policy for the bodily injury, property damage and basic reparations benefits coverages, the declarations expressly provide otherwise for underinsured motorist coverage:

“Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist
$100,000 per person
$300,000 per accident
Uninsured Premium $42.00
(One premium per policy, included in total policy premium)”

The plaintiffs admitted that they had not read these documents, which plainly describe the underinsured motorist premium and coverage.

This does not conclude our analysis, however, because the policy language is not dispositive of the reasonable expectations of the parties to such a contract. Indeed, “we have held that . . . underinsured motorist coverage can be ‘stacked’ despite language in the relevant insurance policy that purports explicitly to prohibit ‘stacking’ of such coverage in the event that two automobiles are insured under the same policy.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, supra; Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 646. In all of our cases upholding the right of the insured to stack underinsured motorist coverage, however, the policyholder had paid a separate, additional premium for the additional coverage. Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, supra; Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 530; Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 645; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, supra, 482; Dixon v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 453; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra, 394-97; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, supra, 333; Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 447-53. In that circumstance, the insured was entitled to aggregate coverage because the parties reasonably expected such additional coverage. The same result is not compelled here, however, because the insureds paid a single actuarially appropriate premium for the underinsured motorist coverage.

The plaintiffs acknowledge that the right of an insured to aggregate underinsured motorist coverage is based upon the reasonable expectations of the parties. The plaintiffs maintain, however, that the payment of a separate, additional premium is not a prerequisite to a determination that stacking is available and that aggregation of coverage is mandated in this case. We agree, of course, that aggregated coverage may be available to an insured even in the absence of the payment of a double premium if stacking is the reasonable expectation of the parties. We do not agree, however, that a policyholder who insures two passenger vehicles under one policy but who pays a single premium for underinsured motorist coverage necessarily is entitled to aggregate coverage. The availability of stacking depends upon the reasonable expectations of the parties to the contract, a determination to be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the arbitration panel considered the evidence and concluded that “there is nothing about the facts . . . which would justify an expectation of stacked coverage on the part of the [plaintiffs].”

Furthermore, as we noted previously, in this case not only did the policy specifically exclude stacking, but the premium was calculated accordingly. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim of stacking in this case could only be justified upon a conclusion that stacking is required as a matter of law whenever the policy covers more than one vehicle. We can find no justification for such a conclusion, either in the statutes or regulations regarding underinsured motorist coverage.

The plaintiffs concede, moreover, that there is no required stacking of third party liability coverage, of no fault basic reprations coverage, of collision coverage, or of comprehensive coverage, simply because the policy involved covers more than one vehicle. We can perceive no reason to hold, however, as the plaintiffs’ argument suggests, that stacking of underinsured motorist coverage is required as a matter of law despite the language of the policy and the lack of any reasonable expectation thereof.

The trial court recognized that this case presents a stacking issue of first impression and relied upon what it characterized as this court’s “strong and unequivocal policy in favor of stacking” as reflected in our decisions upholding the right of insureds to aggregate coverage. See Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, supra; Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra; Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, supra; Dixon v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., supra; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, supra; Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra. As we have discussed, however, those cases hold only that an insurer may not avoid liability for stacking, even though language in the policy purports to do so, if the insured has paid a separate, additional premium for underinsured motorist coverage. To permit an insurer so to limit its liability under such circumstances would deprive the insured of a benefit for which the policyholder has paid, a result not consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties. Those are not the circumstances here. Because there was substantial evidence to support the arbitrators’ determination that the plaintiffs could not have had a reasonable expectation of stacked coverage; Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646, 660-61 n.15, 591 A.2d 101 (1991); the trial court improperly granted the plaintiffs’ application to vacate the arbitration award.

Accordingly, we conclude that General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c does not require that an insurer aggregate the underinsured motorist coverage provided in a policy covering two passenger vehicles if the insured has paid a single actuarially appropriate premium for the underinsured motorist coverage and the policy expressly excludes stacked coverage.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment denying the application to vacate the arbitration award.

In this opinion Borden, Norcott and Katz, Js., concurred.

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. This case must be viewed within the context of our public policy. “The public policy established by the uninsured motorist statute is that every insured is entitled to recover for the damages he or she would have been able to recover if the uninsured[/underinsured] motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance. Insurance companies are powerless to restrict the broad coverage mandated by the statute.” Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245, 249, 449 A.2d 157 (1982). This public policy is further underscored by General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c, now recodified as § 38a-336 (a) (2), which requires that each policy must provide underinsured motorist coverage “with limits for bodily injury and death equal to those purchased to protect against loss . . . unless the insured requests in writing a lesser amount, but not less than the limits specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112.” (Emphasis added.)

The majority opinion does not square with Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 211 Conn. 640, 560 A.2d 964 (1989), wherein we held that § 38-175c (a) (2) does not provide a statutory basis for limiting stacking. The language in the Nicolletta policy specifically limited the amount of the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for the second automobile to an amount equal to the minimum required by law, which in that case was an amount less than the liability coverage on that automobile. Although the plaintiff in Nicolletta had paid two separate premiums, this court’s decision permitting stacking to the full extent of the liability coverage on each automobile was not predicated on that fact. It was on the basis of § 38-175c (a) (2) that this court concluded that the statute does not provide a statutory basis for limiting stacking of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage unless the insured chooses to waive in writing the additional coverage. Id., 647.

This was underscored in Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 645-46, when we quoted from Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, 201 Conn. 478, 481-84, 518 A.2d 373 (1986), and emphasized the following: “This court has, on a number of occasions, considered the stacking of uninsured and underinsured automobile insurance coverage for two passenger cars. Three principles of law emerge from our cases. First, we have noted that the issue of aggregation of coverage for multiple vehicles can arise with regard either to interpolicy stacking under separate and distinct insurance policies, or to single policy, intra-policy stacking. Regardless of this difference in form, we have repeatedly held that General Statutes § 38-175c [now § 38a-336] permits an injured claimant to stack coverages. . . . Second, in the context of cases involving intra-policy stacking, such as the one presently before us, we have held that such stacking is particularly appropriate when, as here, each of the insured vehicles is separately described, the coverage granted under the policy is separately listed for each vehicle and a separate premium is charged for the coverage afforded to each of the described vehicles. . . . Third, relying on regulations enacted pursuant to General Statutes §§ 38-175a and 38-175c [now §§ 38a-334 and 38a-336, respectively], we have concluded that an insurer may not, by contract, reduce its liability for such uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage except as § 38-175a-6 of the Regulations of Con necticut State Agencies expressly authorizes. . . . That regulation permits an insurer to limit its liability to the extent that damages have been paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury, have been paid or are payable under any workers’ compensation or disability benefits law, have been paid under the policy in settlement of a liability claim, or have been paid or are payable under any provisions of the policy for direct indemnity for medical expense or basic reparations benefits. The regulation nowhere authorizes an insurer contractually to interdict stacking. Accordingly, we have held that uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage can be stacked despite language in the relevant insurance policy that purports explicitly to prohibit stacking of such coverage in the event that two automobiles are insured under the same policy.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added in Nicoletta; internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 397-98, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982) (stacking permitted despite policy provision stating that “[i]n no event will any insured be entitled to more than the highest limit applicable to any one motor vehicle under this or any other policy issued by us”).

In addition, the legislative history of No. 83-461 of the 1983 Public Acts, which created § 38-175c (a) (2), makes it clear that “the statute does not give an insurance carrier a similar option to reduce the coverage.” Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 647. “ ‘Under sub-section 2, it would require each insured who purchases more than the legally required amount of liability insurance would [sic] receive the same amount of uninsured motorist coverage. The insured would have an opportunity to waive in writing the additional uninsured motorist coverage. This change would increase the consumer’s awareness of the value of low-cost uninsured motorist coverage which protects the insured and his family members. Apparently many drivers purchase $100,000.00 or more of liability coverage but leave their uninsured motorist coverage at the minimum of $20,000.00 - $40,000.00. Sub-section 2 which gives such a driver an increased amount of uninsured motorist coverage, unless he makes a conscious decision not to purchase it. ’ (Emphasis added.) 26 S. Proc., Pt. 9, 1983 Sess., p. 3055, remarks of Senator Wayne A. Baker.” Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 647.

Applying § 38-175c (a) (2) to the present case, the limit of liability on each of the two automobiles was $100,000; therefore, the uninsured/underinsured coverage on each automobile was $100,000. Consequently, the aggregation or stacking of the $100,000 available for each automobile requires uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage of $200,000. Section 38-175c (a) (2) does not permit the insurer to limit uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage to $100,000, because it would be less than the limits of liability coverage.

The majority opinion is predicated on the “reasonable expectations” of the insured. This, indeed, was the trial court’s rationale in Yacobacci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Conn. Sup. 229, 372 A.2d 987 (1976), the first Connecticut case to recognize the concept of intrapolicy stacking. “Where two premiums are paid for two vehicles, whether in one policy or two, total coverage for the named insured is doubled since a person can reasonably expect double coverage when he pays double premiums. See Sturdy v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 203 Kan. 783 [457 P.2d 34 (1969)].” Yacobacci v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 231. The “reasonable expectation” rationale no longer applies. The 1983 legislative mandate clearly established our public policy of requiring insurers to provide uninsured/underinsured coverage to the extent of the liability limits unless the insured waives, in writing, such coverage. Public Acts 1983, No. 83-461. If the reasonable expectations of the insured were the touchstone for allowing stacking, this court would not have permitted stacking in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, supra, 487 n.7 (policy provision limiting insurer’s liability to “the amount shown for any one auto”). Surely, the contractual provision in Ferrante would have dispelled any expectation of stacking on the part of the insured; nevertheless, this court permitted stacking. Id., 488; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra, 400.

I agree with the well reasoned opinion of the trial court, Schaller, J., now a judge of the Appellate Court, as follows: “If explicit language in the policy has been held to be ineffectual in preventing stacking [in Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra], it is difficult to believe that insurer Middlesex’s more subtle attempt to prevent stacking in the present case through the use of the phrase ‘One Premium Per Policy’ in the Declarations Page would be any more successful in preventing stacking. Therefore, the court concludes that, given the Supreme Court’s strong and unequivocal policy in favor of stacking, the plaintiff insureds in the present case should have been permitted to stack the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which they purchased for their two vehicles. The mere fact that a single premium was charged for uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage for the two vehicles, rather than a separate premium being charged for each vehicle, cannot undo the court’s long-standing policy in support of intra-policy stacking.”

Furthermore, whether a premium is charged is not significant. What is significant is that the insured has two automobiles, both insured by the policy, and that the legislature has mandated uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limits on each automobile unless the insured “ ‘makes a conscious decision not to purchase it.’ ” Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra, 647.

The insurance carrier may limit its liability for uninsured/underinsured coverage by obtaining a waiver to the extent permitted by § 38a-336 (a) (2). By requiring a waiver, the statute seeks to ensure that the average person understands what he or she is giving up. The majority opinion obviates the need for the statutory waiver requirement. Indeed, as the plaintiffs argue, the majority opinion will “in effect judicially eliminate stacking, as every insurer would then charge one premium and restrict coverage to the limits applicable to one vehicle no matter how many vehicles were covered under the policy.”

The elimination of stacking may be an appropriate public policy decision for the legislature to make, but it is beyond this court’s jurisdiction to impose that result.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c (b) (2), now recodified as § 38a-336 (d), provided: “For the purposes of this section, an ‘underinsured motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle with respect to which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable limits of liability under the uninsured motorist portion of the policy against which claim is made under subdivision (1) of this subsection.”

       Throughout this opinion, the term underinsured motorist coverage encompasses uninsured motorist coverage as well. See Rydingsword v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 8, 14 n.11, 615 A.2d 1032 (1992); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 399-400, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982).

       Intrapolicy stacking is the aggregation of the limits of liability for underinsured motorist coverage of each automobile covered under one insurance policy. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 388-89 n.2, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982).

       The defendant has paid $77,000 to the plaintiffs as its pro rata share of the unaggregated underinsured motorist coverage after appropriate setoffs. The parties agree that this payment fully satisfies the defendant’s liability to the plaintiffs if we determine that the plaintiffs are not permitted to stack the underinsured motorist coverage.

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175a, now recodified as § 38a-334, provided in relevant part: “minimum provisions in automobile liability POLICIES, (a) The insurance commissioner shall adopt regulations with respect to minimum provisions to be included in automobile liability insurance polices issued after the effective date of such regulations and covering private passenger motor vehicles, as defined in subsection (g) of section 38-319 . . . registered or principally garaged in this state. Such regulations shall relate to the insuring agreements, exclusions, conditions and other terms applicable to the . . . uninsured motorists coverages under such policies, shall make mandatory the inclusion of . . . uninsured motorists coverages ....
      “(b).... Nothing contained in such regulations or in sections 38-175a to 38-175e, inclusive, shall prohibit any insurer from affording broader coverage under a policy of automobile liability insurance than that required by such regulations.”

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c, now recodified as § 38a-336, provided in relevant part: “uninsured motorist coverage, (a) (1) Every such [automobile liability insurance] policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured motorist coverage, in accordance with such regulations, with limits for bodily injury or death not less than those specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and underinsured motor vehicles and insured motor vehicles, the insurer of which becomes insolvent prior to payment of such damages, because of bodily injury, including death resulting therefrom, provided each insurer licensed to write automobile liability insurance in this state shall provide such uninsured motorists coverage with limits requested by the named insured upon payment of the appropriate premium, but such insurer shall not be required to provide such coverage with limits in excess of the limits of the bodily injury coverage of such policy issued to the named insured. . . .

      “(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, every such [automobile liability insurance] policy issued or renewed on and after July 1,1984, shall provide uninsured motorist coverage with limits for bodily injury and death equal to those purchased to protect against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law unless the insured requests in writing a lesser amount, but not less than the limits specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112. . . .
      “(b) (1) An insurance company shall be obligated to make payment to its insured up to the limits of the policy’s uninsured motorist coverage after the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements, but in no event shall the total amount of recovery from all policies, including any amount recovered under the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage, exceed the limits of the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage.” (Emphasis added.)

       Section 38-175a-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, now § 38a-334-6, provided in relevant part: “(a) coverage. The insurer shall undertake to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured caused by an accident involving the uninsured motor vehicle. This coverage shall insure the occupants of every motor vehicle to which the bodily injury liability coverage applies. ‘Uninsured motor vehicle’ includes a motor vehicle insured against liability by an insurer that is or becomes insolvent.”

       The concept of intrapolicy stacking in Connecticut originated in Yacobacci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Conn. Sup. 229, 231, 372 A.2d 987 (1976), which relied upon the seminal decision of the Kansas Supreme Court in Sturdy v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 203 Kan. 783, 457 P.2d 34 (1969). Just as her sojourn in Oz forever transformed Dorothy, the adoption of Sturdy has altered the landscape of underinsured motorist coverage in Connecticut. See L. Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900).

       Section 38-175a-6 (d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, now § 38a-334-6, provided: “limits op liability. The limit of the insurer’s liability may not be less than the applicable limits for bodily injury liability specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112 of the general statutes, except that the policy may provide for the reduction of limits to the extent that damages have been
      “(1) paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury,
      “(2) paid or are payable under any workers’ compensation or disability benefits law, or
      “(3) paid under the policy in settlement of a liability claim. The policy may also provide that any direct indemnity for medical expense paid or payable under the policy or any amount of any basic reparations benefits paid or payable under the policy will reduce the damages which the insured may recover under this coverage and any payment under these coverages shall reduce the company’s obligation under the bodily injury liability coverage to the extent of the payment.” See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Malec, 215 Conn. 399, 576 A.2d 485 (1990).
      The defendant does not contend that any of these exceptions permits it to avoid aggregating coverage in this case. See Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 332-33, 387 A.2d 539 (1978).

       The plaintiffs testified at the arbitration hearing. The plaintiffs presented no other witnesses.

       Section 38-175a-6 (d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provided that an insurer may not reduce its underinsured motorist liability except as permitted by that section. See footnote 9. The coverage must exist, however, before it can be reduced. See Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 27 Conn. App. 573, 581-82, 609 A.2d 1008 (1992), aff’d, 225 Conn. 257, 622 A.2d 572 (1993). Because we determine that the policy contains “nothing to stack”; Yeager v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 335 N.W.2d 733, 738 (Minn. 1983); this regulation is inapposite.

       The defendant’s actuary testified that the premium charged was actuarially appropriate for coverage of $100,000 and actuarially inappropriate for coverage of $200,000. The actuary also testified that because the premium charged is based solely on the amount of coverage purchased, “It is not relevant whether it’s one, two, three or four vehicles . . . that are insured under that policy.” Although the plaintiffs do not accept these conclusions, they introduced no evidence to the contrary.

       A policy of insurance is to be interpreted by the same general rules as those governing the construction of any written contract. See Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305, 309, 524 A.2d 641 (1987). If the insurance coverage is defined in terms that are ambiguous, such ambiguity will be resolved against the insurer. See Ceci v. National Indemnity Co., 225 Conn. 165, 171, 622 A.2d 545 (1993); LaBonte v. Federal Mutual Ins. Co., 159 Conn. 252, 256, 268 A.2d 663 (1970). We may not, however, “ ‘indulge in a forced construction ignoring provisions [of the policy]’ ”; Horak v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 181 Conn. 614, 617, 436 A.2d 783 (1980); and we must give the natural and ordinary meaning to plain and unambiguous language in the provisions of an insurance contract. Rydingsword v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 8, 15, 615 A.2d 1032 (1992); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Bulaong, 218 Conn. 51, 58, 588 A.2d 138 (1991); Gottesman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 177 Conn. 631, 634, 418 A.2d 944 (1979). In applying these principles to the insurance policy in this case, the arbitration panel found that the contract language clearly prohibited stacking.

       This court has never held, contrary to the view expressed in the dissent, that General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c (a) (2) mandates stacking. We have consistently recognized, rather, that § 38-175c (a) (2) does not specifically address the issue of stacking and that the statute does not prohibit stacking when such aggregation of coverage is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties. Cohn v. Aetna Ins. Co., 213 Conn. 525, 529, 569 A.2d 541 (1990) (“[w]hile . . . the [underinsured] motorist statute . . . does not specifically address the issue of ‘stacking’ coverage, we have repeatedly held that a fair reading of the statute discloses no prohibition against such aggregations”); see also Curran v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 222 Conn. 657, 669, 610 A.2d 1198 (1992); Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30, 35, 594 A.2d 977 (1991). Section 38-175c (a) (2) simply provides that the underinsured motorist coverage in an automobile liability policy shall be: (1) the amount of liability insurance provided in the policy, in this case $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, unless the insured requests in writing less underinsured motorist coverage; but (2) not less than $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident, as required by General Statutes § 14-112 (a). Section 38-175c (a) (2), therefore, neither mandates nor prohibits stacking. As we have repeatedly held, whether an insured may aggregate the limits of liability for underinsured motorist coverage depends upon the reasonable expectations of the parties.

       As an alternative ground for affirmance, the plaintiffs contend that the evidence regarding the premium charged for the underinsured motorist coverage lacked sufficient probative value to establish that an actuarially appropriate premium was charged. The plaintiffs, however, did not raise this claim in arbitration or in the trial court, and therefore it was not considered. In such circumstances and because a resolution of that claim requires factual determinations, we will not review it. See Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53, 61-62 n.13, 491 A.2d 1043 (1985); see also 1 W. Horton & S. Cormier, Connecticut Practice—Practice Book Annotated, Rules of Appellate Procedure (1993) §§ 4013, 4185, authors’ comments and cases cited.

       Justice Shea’s dissent in Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982), sharpens the majority opinion in Gode that whether two premiums are charged is not relevant in determining whether stacking should be permitted. Justice Shea noted the following: ‘ ‘Whether such an expectation is reasonable in the case of a single policy containing a clause like the one we are considering which unambiguously precludes intra-policy stacking is greatly to be doubted. Nevertheless, insurance policies are ‘contracts of adhesion,’ not subject to the normal bargaining procedures of ordinary contracts and it would be unconscionable to permit an insurer to collect a premium twice for the same risk. The difficulty in applying that principle to this case is that we do not know from anything in the record whether the premium charged for uninsured motorist coverage with respect to each of the two vehicles is double the premium applicable to a single vehicle.” Id., 404-405. Thus, although it was important to Justice Shea whether two premiums had been charged, clearly the majority decision was not predicated on that distinction because the majority did not know whether one or two premiums had been charged.

       “Although many courts have implicitly or explicitly determined the right to ‘stack’ coverages on the basis that separate premiums were paid for separate coverages, ultimately this should prove to be a distinction of negligible significance. Furthermore, even the payment of a separate premium is probably an insignificant factor. Some insurance companies do not even charge a separate premium for the uninsured motorist coverage: the cost of the coverage is included in the premium charged for the liability insurance. Whether a separate premium is charged for the uninsured motorist insurance has no bearing on the existence of coverage. Since coverage exists without regard to whether a premium is paid, it is inappropriate to determine the ‘stacking’ question on the basis of whether a separate premium was paid.” 1 A. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance (2d Ed. 1985) § 13.12, p. 627.