source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CALLAHAN, C. J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SERGIO VELASCO
    (SC 15881)
    Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Peters, Js.

      Argued January 13
    officially released March 30, 1999

      Christina M. Carroll, with whom was Gregory A. Klimaszewski, for the appellant (defendant).

      Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mark S. Solak, state’s attorney, and Mark A. Stabile, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

CALLAHAN, C. J.

The defendant, Sergio Velasco, was charged in an information with illegal possession of heroin in violation of General Statutes § 2 la-279 (a), illegal possession of heroin with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 2 la-278 (b) and illegal possession of heroin with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d). Prior to trial, the defendant moved, pursuant to Practice Book § 820 et seq., now § 41-12 et seq., and General Statutes § 54-33f, to suppress the heroin and certain personal items that had been seized from the defendant’s person immediately following his arrest. The defendant maintained that those items should be suppressed because the warrantless search of his person and subsequent seizure violated his rights under both article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. After a hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the charges against the defendant.

The state, on the granting of permission by the trial court, appealed from the court’s judgment to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court concluded that “the defendant’s arrest and the subsequent search and seizure were lawful,” and reversed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Velasco, 47 Conn. App. 424, 434, 707 A.2d 286 (1998). We granted certification limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had incorrectly suppressed evidence in this case, under the totality of circumstances test as articulated in State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529 [594 A.2d 917] (1991)?” State v. Velasco, 244 Conn. 905, 714 A.2d 3 (1998). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The trial court found the following relevant facts. At approximately 1 p.m. on March 5, 1996, Detective Warren Winkler, a nineteen year veteran of the Willi-mantic police department, received a telephone call from a confidential informant. In the past, the informant had provided Winkler with information that had led to numerous arrests and convictions. The informant told Winkler that a person was selling heroin in a soup kitchen located in the basement of St. Paul’s Church, which was near police headquarters. The informant described the person as a heavyset Hispanic male with a thick mustache, who was approximately five feet, five inches tall and appeared to be between thirty and thirty-five years old. The informant stated that the person conducted illegal narcotics transactions at the soup kitchen on a daily basis, usually in the morning. Finally, the informant told Winkler that he not only had observed the person selling narcotics in the soup kitchen, but also had purchased heroin from the person. At that point, Winkler instructed the informant to contact him if he again observed the person selling narcotics.

At approximately 10 a.m. the following morning, the informant called Winkler and told him that he had observed the same person make several sales of heroin at the soup kitchen that morning. The informant again described the person as a Hispanic male in his thirties, approximately five feet, five inches tall, with a thick mustache. The informant further stated that the person was wearing light colored pants and a light colored trench coat with green corduroy trim, and that the sleeves of the coat were rolled up.

Immediately after receiving the second telephone call from the informant, Winkler and three other plainclothes Willimantic police officers went to the soup kitchen, where they observed the defendant, who matched the description provided by the informant. No one else present in the soup kitchen that morning matched the description. The officers themselves did not observe the defendant sell narcotics, nor did the defendant make an attempt to escape when the officers entered the soup kitchen.

Relying solely on the information that had been supplied by the informant, Winkler and the other officers then arrested the defendant. Immediately thereafter, and incident thereto, they searched the defendant and discovered six packets of heroin in his coat pocket.

The trial court made additional findings of fact. It found that the neighborhood in which St. Paul’s Church is located is not an area of heavy drug trafficking. The Wilhmantic police department regularly uses undercover officers to observe and, in some cases, purchase drugs from suspected dealers. Although the police officers could have followed either or both of those procedures in the present case, they chose not to do so.

As a threshold matter, we set forth the appropriate standard pursuant to which we review a challenge to a trial court’s granting of a suppression motion. “ ‘This involves a two part function: where the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous. That is the standard and scope of this court’s judicial review of decisions of the trial court. Beyond that, we will not go.' Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980).” State v. Zindros, 189 Conn. 228, 238, 456 A.2d 288 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S. Ct. 1014, 79 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1984). In other words, to the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether those findings were clearly erroneous. Where, however, the trial court has drawn conclusions of law, our review is plenary, and we must decide whether those conclusions are legally and logically correct in light of the findings of fact.

Under both the federal and the state constitutions, a warrantless search and seizure is per se unreasonable, subject to a few well defined exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967); State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363, 383, 630 A.2d 1315 (1993); State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602, 609, 600 A.2d 1330 (1991). One of those exceptions is a search incident to a lawful arrest. It is an established rule that a properly conducted warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is itself lawful. State v. Cobuzzi, 161 Conn. 371, 373, 288 A.2d 439 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1017, 92 S. Ct. 677, 30 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1972); State v. Collins, 150 Conn. 488, 492, 191 A.2d 253 (1963). Thus, if the defendant’s arrest was lawful, the subsequent warrantless search of his person also was lawful.

General Statutes § 54-lf (b) authorizes a police officer to conduct a warrantless arrest of “any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony.” The phrase “reasonable grounds to believe” is synonymous with probable cause. State v. Trine, 236 Conn. 216, 236 n.16, 673 A.2d 1098 (1996); State v. Love, 169 Conn. 596, 599, 363 A.2d 1035 (1975).

The determination of whether probable cause exists under the fourth amendment to the federal constitution, and under article first, § 7, of our state constitution, is made pursuant to a “totality of circumstances” test. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231-32, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983); State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 544, 594 A.2d 917 (1991). With respect to warrantless arrests based upon information provided by a confidential informant, the trial court, in determining whether the arrest is supported by probable cause, is required to make a practical, nontechnical decision whether, under all the circumstances, including the “veracity” and the “basis of knowledge” of the person or persons supplying information, there is a fair probability that the defendant had committed or was committing a felony. State v. Johnson, 219 Conn. 557, 563, 594 A.2d 933 (1991).

I

Before we examine whether the Appellate Court, in reversing the contrary decision of the trial court, properly concluded that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, we need briefly to review the development of the probable cause doctrine. An appropriate starting point is the “two-pronged” test derived from the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969). The AguilarSpinelli test, as it is commonly known, provided a method for evaluating the existence of probable cause when an arrest or search warrant affidavit was based upon information supplied to the police by a confidential informant. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the trial court was required to make two determinations: (1) whether the informant’s veracity or reliability was established; and (2) whether there was a basis for the informant’s knowledge regarding the information supplied. State v. Ruscoe, 212 Conn. 223, 228-29, 563 A.2d 267 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S. Ct. 1144, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1049 (1990); State v. Delmonaco, 194 Conn. 331, 338, 481 A.2d 40, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036, 105 S. Ct. 511, 83 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1984).

In Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 213, the United States Supreme Court recognized an underlying flaw in the application of the Aguilar-Spinelli analysis. Specifically, the court noted that courts and commentators had regarded the two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test to be entirely independent of each other, and each necessary to a finding of probable cause. As a result, courts had struggled to formulate rules regarding what types of information and what types of independent police corroboration might satisfy each of the prongs. Id., 229 n.4; see also 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure (3d Ed. 1996) § 3.3 (a), pp. 88-104. The court reasoned that the elaborate set of legal rules that had resulted from this emphasis on the independent character of the two prongs had led courts to dissect evidence relating to probable cause in an excessively technical manner. Consequently, the court abandoned the Aguilar-Spi-nelli approach. Illinois v. Gates, supra, 236-38. In its place, the United States Supreme Court established a “totality of circumstances” approach. Using the Gates methodology, a trial court must examine all of the evidence relating to the issue of probable cause and, on the basis of that evidence, make a commonsense, practical determination of whether probable cause existed, i.e., whether there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed or was committing a crime. Id., 238. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that the totality of circumstances approach was more consistent with the nature of a probable cause determination, which, as the court noted, “involves a practical, nontechnical conception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 231, quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949).

Although we initially declined to follow the totality of circumstances approach in cases that implicated article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution; State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 230-31, 496 A.2d 498 (1985); in State v. Barton, supra, 219 Conn. 544, we revisited the issue and adopted the totality of circumstances test. Consequently, the analysis we now use to determine whether information supplied by a confidential informant satisfies the constitutional requirement of probable cause is the same under both article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution and the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. See id.

In rejecting the complex rules that had evolved from Aguilar and Spinelli, however, neither the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gates, nor our decision in Barton rejected the underlying concerns that originally had been expressed by the Aguilar-Spinelli inquiry. Rather, the Gates and Barton decisions both “reaffirmed that the ‘veracity’ or ‘reliability’ and the ‘basis of knowledge’ inquiries formulated in Aguilar[-Spinelli] remain ‘highly relevant’ in the determination of probable cause . . . .” State v. Barton, supra, 229 Conn. 537; see Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 230. In fact, both Gates and Barton stated that an informant’s “veracity” or “reliability” and “basis of knowledge” “should be regarded as ‘closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common-sense, practical question’ of the existence of probable cause . . . .” State v. Barton, supra, 537.

Moreover, because the totality of circumstances approach provides only an alternative method for determining the existence of probable cause, it does not affect the quality or quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause. In other words, the totality of circumstances test simply allows a court to consider all the relevant evidence in determining whether probable cause exists; it does not increase the level of evidence necessary to support a determination of probable cause. Because the quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause remains consistent regardless of wheth er a court applies the Aguilar-Spinelli or totality of circumstances test, it logically follows that evidence that would have satisfied the requirements of probable cause under the rigid Aguilar-Spinelli approach necessarily satisfies the requirements of probable cause under the more inclusive totality of circumstances approach. To put it succinctly, probable cause is probable cause.

II

In the present case, the trial court found that the informant had supplied the police with: (1) information on numerous other occasions that had led to arrests and convictions; (2) a detailed physical description of the defendant, including a description of what he was wearing; (3) the place and time of day that the defendant usually conducted his illegal narcotics transactions, and the type of drugs sold by the defendant; and (4) a self-incriminating statement that the informant had, in fact, purchased heroin from the defendant. Moreover, in its memorandum of decision, the trial court specifically determined that: (1) “the information which had been provided by the informant to the police in previous matters, which had led to convictions, constituted a sufficient basis to establish the informant’s veracity”; and (2) “the informant’s reported personal observation of narcotics sales by the defendant constituted a sufficient basis for the informant’s knowledge that the defendant had engaged in illegal narcotic[s] transactions.”

Despite its determinations regarding the informant’s veracity and basis of knowledge, the trial court reasoned that, “[attempts to corroborate the informant’s tip were likely to help establish the defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Consequently, the trial court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances test, the officers had not had probable cause to arrest the defendant. It is this conclusion with which the Appellate Court disagreed.

As the Appellate Court properly held, the trial court’s conclusion that probable cause did not exist, however, is both legally and logically inconsistent with the trial court’s factual findings. Examining the facts found by the trial court, including its specific determination that the evidence adequately established the confidential informant’s “veracity” and “basis of knowledge,” we conclude that the information supplied by the confidential informant, coupled with the police officers’ verification of that information, provided the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant. See, e.g., McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 304, 87 S. Ct. 1056, 18 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1967) (information from reliable informant verified by direct observation sufficient to give police officers probable cause to make warrantless arrest); United States v. Pressley, 978 F.2d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 1992) (“[i]t is well settled that the statements of a reliable informant can provide, by themselves, a sufficient basis for the issuance of a warrant”); United States v. James, 466 F.2d 475, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (identifying information coupled with arresting officer’s verification of this information is adequate probable cause for arrest). Because the information supplied to Winkler by the informant, by itself, was sufficient to establish the fair probability that the defendant was selling illicit drugs at the soup kitchen, the officers were not required to corroborate that information through independent investigation prior to arresting the defendant.

The facts found by the trial court established that the arrest of the defendant was lawful. As a result, the search and seizure conducted incident to that arrest also was lawful. Consequently, the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court incorrectly suppressed the heroin seized from the defendant’s person.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) provides: “Any person who possesses or has under his control any quantity of any narcotic substance, except as authorized in this chapter, for a first offense, may be imprisoned not more than seven years or be fined not more than fifty thousand dollars, or be both fined and imprisoned; and for a second offense, may be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or be fined not more than one hundred thousand dollars, or be both fined and imprisoned; and for any subsequent offense, may be imprisoned not more than twenty-five years or be fined not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars, or be both fined and imprisoned.”
      General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) provides: “Any person who manufactures, distributes, sells, prescribes, dispenses, compounds, transports with the intent to sell or dispense, possesses with the intent to sell or dispense, offers, gives or administers to another person any narcotic substance, hallucinogenic substance other than marijuana, amphetamine-type substance, or one kilogram or more of a cannabis-type substance except as authorized in this chapter, and who is not at the time of such action a drug-dependent person, for a first offense shall be imprisoned not less than five years nor more than twenty years; and for each subsequent offense shall be imprisoned not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years. The execution of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the provisions of this subsection shall not be suspended except the court may suspend the execution of such mandatory minimum sentence if at the time of the commission of the offense (1) such person was under the age of eighteen years or, (2) such person’s mental capacity was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.”
      General Statutes § 21a-279 (d) provides: “Any person who violates subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section in or on, or within one thousand five hundred feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school and who is not enrolled as a student in such school or a licensed child day care center, as defined in section 19a-77, that is identified as a child day care center by a sign posted in a conspicuous place shall be imprisoned for a term of two years, which shall not be suspended and shall be in addition and consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed for violation of subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section.”

       Article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.”
      The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

       Contrary to the trial court’s tactual findings, however, the record clearly reveals that Winkler actually met with the informant in person at police headquarters on the afternoon of March 5, 1996.

       In support of his contention that evidence (hat would have supported a finding of probable cause under the Aguilar-Spinelli test (i.e., evidence establishing an informant’s “veracity” or “reliability” and “basis of knowledge”) does not necessarily require a finding of probable cause under the totality of circumstances test, the defendant makes reference to the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 519 A.2d 820 (1987). To the extent that Novembrino provides support for such a proposition, however, we find its reasoning unpersuasive.

       The defendant has not, on appeal, challenged the validity of these findings.

       Although the trial court may have been correct in asserting that ‘•[ajttempts to corroborate the informant’s tip were likely to help establish the defendant’s guilt or innocence,” such an assertion is entirely irrelevant to the determination of probable cause in the present case. Specifically, the determination of probable cause involves solely an examination of the information known to the police at the time of the arrest or search. It does not take into consideration what other steps the police could have taken to secure more evidence against the defendant. See State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, 541, 628 A.2d 567 (1993). Moreover, the trial court’s reference to the possibility that independent corroboration may have helped to establish the defendant’s “guilt or innocence” overstates the requirements of probable cause. We previously have stated that “[t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marra, 222 Conn. 506, 513, 610 A.2d 1113 (1992).


text:
    ETHEL ORKNEY v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY
    (SC 15942)
    Callahan, C. J., and Berdon, Norcott, Palmer and McDonald, Js.

      Argued December 4, 1998
    officially released March 30, 1999

      Paul M. Glyons, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Jon S. Berk, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

CALLAHAN, C. J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the contracts of insurance at issue relieved the defendant automobile liability insurer of the obligation to provide underinsured motorist benefits to the plaintiff. We conclude that they did and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. On August 19, 1994, the plaintiff, Ethel Orkney, was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was owned and operated by Norman Nicholson. The Nicholson vehicle was involved in an accident with an automobile driven by Sachito Sekiguchi. The plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by Sekiguchi’s negligence and that she was injured as a result of that negligence.

Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. (Alamo), was the owner of the vehicle operated by Sekiguchi (rental vehicle). The automobile rental agreement between Alamo and Seki-guchi provided that, “[u]nless contrary to state law . . . if there is no other valid and collectible insurance . . . available to the renter . . . sufficient to meet minimum financial responsibility law requirements, then . . . Alamo shall provide protection against liability for bodily injury, death or property damage to others up to the minimum financial responsibility limits required by applicable law. Such protection shall be provided through either an insurance policy or a certificate of self insurance .... [The renter agrees] that any amounts over this minimum will be covered by [the renter] or by [his] liability policy and that [he] will indemnify [Alamo] for any losses that exceed the minimum limits.” Connecticut law requires that automobile insurance policies provide minimum liability coverage of $20,000 per person for bodily injury or death and $40,000 per accident. Thus, with respect to the plaintiffs alleged injuries, Alamo provided Sekiguchi, in her capacity as the driver of the rental vehicle, with liability insurance coverage of $20,000. Sekiguchi had no other automobile liability insurance coverage.

On March 4,1994, Alamo, as an owner of rental vehicles registered in Connecticut, had filed an application for self-insurer status with the Connecticut department of insurance. The application was approved effective March 15, 1994. Consequently, at the time of the accident, Alamo was a self-insurer under Connecticut law.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from Seki-guchi and Alamo for injuries that she allegedly had sustained in the accident caused by Sekiguchi’s negligence. She subsequently settled her claims against Seki-guchi and Alamo for a total of $20,000 — the maximum liability coverage the rental agreement provided Seki-guchi in her capacity as the driver of the rental vehicle. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action for underinsured motorist benefits against Nicholson’s earlier, and, coincidentally, her own carrier, the defendant, Hanover Insurance Company, claiming underinsured motorist coverage under both Nicholson’s automobile liability policy and her own automobile liability policy (Hanover policies). The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that its policies did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs claims because: (1) although the plaintiff had exhausted the liability insurance coverage available to Sekiguchi as the driver of the rental car, she had failed to exhaust the liability coverage available to Alamo as the owner of the rental car; and (2) the policies specifically excluded vehicles owned by self-insurers from the policy definition of underinsured motor vehicles, and Alamo, the owner of the rental car, was a self-insurer under Connecticut law. Concluding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the limits of Alamo’s liability coverage, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and, pursuant to Practice Book § 63-4 (1) (A), the defendant subsequently filed a timely preliminary statement of issues as alternative grounds for affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

As an alternate ground for affirmance of the trial court’s judgment, the defendant contends that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive underinsured motorist benefits from it because the Hanover policies explicitly excluded vehicles owned by self-insurers from the policy definition of underinsured motor vehicles. The plaintiff does not dispute that the Hanover policies exclude underinsured motorist coverage for vehicles owned by self-insurers and that Alamo was a self-insurer under Connecticut law. Rather, the plaintiff argues that: (1) although § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies permits vehicles owned by self-insurers to be excluded from uninsured motorist coverage, it does not permit vehicles owned by self-insurers to be excluded from underinsured motorist coverage; and (2) if § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B) does permit automobile liability insurance providers to exclude self-insured vehicles from the purview of underinsured motorist coverage, the regulation is invalid. We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs arguments.

“The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Levine v. Advest, Inc., 244 Conn. 732, 743, 714 A.2d 649 (1998); Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership, 243 Conn. 552, 554, 707 A.2d 15 (1998); see Practice Book § 17-49.

An insurer’s responsibility to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is mandatory, not discretionary. General Statutes § 38a-336 (a) (1) provides in relevant part that “[e]ach automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334 . . . .” (Emphasis added.) We previously have concluded, moreover, that “an insurer may not, by contract, reduce its liability for . . . uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage,” except as authorized by § 38a-334-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 245 Conn. 169, 174, 713 A.2d 1269 (1998); Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 219 Conn. 371, 377-78, 593 A.2d 498 (1991); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, 201 Conn. 478, 483, 518 A.2d 373 (1986). Consequently, the provision of the Hanover policies that excludes motor vehicles owned by self-insurers from the policy definition of “underinsured motor vehicle” is enforceable only if properly authorized by § 38a-334-6.

Section 38a-334-6 (c) provides in relevant part that “[t]he insurer’s obligations to pay may be made inapplicable ... (2) if the uninsured vehicle is owned by (A) the named insured . . . [or] (B) a self insurer under any motor vehicle law . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In the plaintiffs view, the lack of a direct reference in the regulation to underinsured motor vehicles indicates that the regulation does not apply to such vehicles. We repeatedly have stated, however, that the statutes and regulations applicable to uninsured motorist coverage also apply to underinsured motorist coverage. See, e.g., Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 245 Conn. 710, 712 n.2, 714 A.2d 1209 (1998); Lowrey v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 152, 153 n.l, 617 A.2d 454 (1992);McGlin-chey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 224 Conn. 133, 134-35, 617 A.2d 445 (1992); Hotkowski v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 224 Conn. 145, 151, 617 A.2d 451 (1992); Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30, 31 n.3, 594 A.2d 977 (1991). In fact, we previously have determined that the coverage exclusion authorized in § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (A) for vehicles owned by a named insured applies to underinsured motorist coverage as well as to uninsured motorist coverage. Lowrey v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., supra, 152. We conclude, therefore, that § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B) authorizes the exclusion of vehicles owned by self-insurers from the scope of the underinsured motorist coverage provided by an automobile liability insurance policy.

The plaintiff argues, however, that if § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B) permits the exclusion of motor vehicles owned by self-insurers from underinsured motorist coverage, the regulation is invalid because, in the plaintiffs view, permitting such exclusions contravenes the purpose of the underinsured motorist statute. “The plaintiff [however] has a difficult task to demonstrate that [§ 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B)] is beyond the scope of the insurance commissioner’s authority. Mass v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 222 Conn. 631, 649, 610 A.2d 1185 (1992); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Kulla, 216 Conn. 390, 399, 579 A.2d 525 (1990). The commissioner is specifically authorized by statute to promulgate regulations regarding exclusions . . . applicable to . . . uninsured motorists coverages .... General Statutes § 38a-334 (a). Regulations issued by the insurance commissioner to implement the statutes governing uninsured [and underinsured] motorist coverage are presumed valid and have the force and effect of a statute. Dugas v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 217 Conn. 631, 641, 587 A.2d 415 (1991); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Huntley, 223 Conn. 22, 30 n.11, 610 A.2d 1292 (1992); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Kulla, supra, 394. The person claiming the invalidity of a regulation has the burden of proving that it is inconsistent with or beyond the legislative grant. . . . [Furthermore], the insurance commissioner has a very broad grant of regulatory authority in filling in the interstices of the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage legislation, and in doing so his regulation is entitled to great deference. . ; . Mass v. United Stales Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, 649; Rydingsword v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., [224 Conn. 8, 18 n.16, 615 A.2d 1032 (1992)]; Dugas v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., supra, 643; Roy v. Centennial Ins. Co., [171 Conn. 463, 473, 370 A.2d 1011 (1976)].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 245 Conn. 181-82.

“We have acknowledged that [n]ot only is the commissioner obligated to adopt regulations with respect to the minimum provisions to be included in the policy of insurance issued in this state; General Statutes § 38a-334; we presume that these regulations are an accurate reflection of the legislative intent articulated in the statute’s more general language. . . . General Accident Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 221 Conn. 206, 211, 603 A.2d 385 (1992); accord AFSCME v. New Britain, 206 Conn. 465, 470, 538 A.2d 1022 (1988); Texaco Refining & Marketing Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 202 Conn. 583, 599-600, 522 A.2d 771 (1987). . . . [Moreover, if] a regulation has been in existence for a substantial period of time and the legislature has not sought to override the regulation, this fact, although not determinative, provides persuasive evidence of the continued validity of the regulation.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 245 Conn. 182-83.

The regulation at issue in this appeal, § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B), formerly § 38-175a-6 (c) (2) (B), took effect on January 1, 1968. Since 1979, when underinsured motorist coverage was mandated; Public Acts 1979, No. 79-235; the legislature has amended § 38a-336 nine times, but it has never taken any action to prohibit an automobile liability insurer from excluding vehicles owned by self-insurers from underinsured motorist coverage as authorized by § 38a-334-6 (c) (2) (B) — strong evidence that the commissioner’s authorization of the exclusion is valid.

Moreover, although “[t]he public policy established by the [under] insured motorist statute is that every insured is entitled to recover for the damages he or she would have been able to recover if the [underjinsured motorist had maintained [an adequate] policy of liability insurance”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 27, 699 A.2d 964 (1997); Rydingsword v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 224 Conn. 18; “[tjhe statute does not require that [underjinsured motorist coverage be made available when the insured has been otherwise protected .... Nor does the statute provide that the [underjinsured motorist coverage shall stand as an independent source of recovery for the insured, or that the coverage limits shall not be reduced under appropriate circumstances. The statute merely requires that a certain minimum level of protection be provided for those insured under automobile liability insurance policies; the insurance commissioner has been left with the task of defining those terms and conditions which will suffice to satisfy the requirement of protection.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 245 Conn. 184.

The statutory scheme governing self-insurance requires the commissioner of insurance to ascertain whether an applicant for self-insurer status possesses resources adequate for waiver of the minimum insurance coverage requirements. General Statutes § 14-129 provides in relevant part that “[ajny person in whose name more than twenty-five motor vehicles are registered may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance issued by the commissioner .... The commissioner may, in his discretion, upon the application of such person, issue a certificate of self-insurance when he is satisfied that such person is possessed and will continue to be possessed of ability to pay judgments obtained against such person. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, General Statutes § 38a-371 provides in relevant part that “[tjhe owner of a private passenger motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall provide and continuously maintain throughout the registration period security in accordance with sections 38a-334 to 38a-343, inclusive. . . . The security required by this section, may be provided by a policy of insurance complying with this section issued by or on behalf of an insurer licensed to transact business in this state .... Subject to approval of the Insurance Commissioner the security required by this section, [also] may be provided by self-insurance by filing with the commissioner in satisfactory form: (1) A continuing undertaking by the owner or other appropriate person to perform all obligations imposed by this section; (2) evidence that appropriate provision exists for the prompt and efficient administration of all claims, benefits, and obligations provided by this section; and (3) evidence that reliable financial arrangements, deposits or commitments exist providing assurance for payment of all obligations imposed by this section substantially equivalent to those afforded by a policy of insurance that would comply with this section. A person who provides security under this subsection is a self-insurer. ...” (Emphasis added.) Thus, in order to obtain status as a self-insurer, an owner of a motor vehicle must demonstrate to the commissioner of insurance the ability to pay judgments rendered against the owner as a result of the operation of the motor vehicle. We find nothing inconsistent between the public policy underlying underinsured motorist coverage and a regulation that permits a coverage exclusion that is based upon a demonstrated ability to pay judgments rendered. An individual who is injured by virtue of the operation of a self-insured rental vehicle may seek compensation from the owner of that vehicle. The fact that the plaintiff chose to settle her claims against Sekiguchi, the driver of the rental vehicle, and Alamo, the self-insured owner of the rental vehicle, for less than her alleged total damages simply does not provide a basis for permitting the plaintiff to recover underinsured motorist benefits from the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       See General Statutes § 38a-336, which provides in relevant part: “(a) (1) Each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to section 38a-334, 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. ...”

       See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 38a-334-5; see also General Statutes §§ 14-112, 38a-335.

       The application indicated that Alamo had the following automobile liability insurance coverage:
      “Continental Insurance Company, Policy SRE 9561211, 10/1/91-10/1/94 Provides $4.0 million CSL excess of $1.0 million.
      “Umbrella Liability with Royal Indemnity Company, Policy RHN 005674, 10/1/93-10/1/96 Provides $5.0 million excess of primary.
      “Excess Liability:
      “Reliance Insurance Company, Policy NEA 0105309, 10/1/93-10/1/94 Provides $5.0 million excess of $10.0 million.
      “Transamerica Insurance Company, Policy XLX 2827656, 10/1/93-10/1/94 Provides $25.0 million excess of $15.0 million.
      “Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Policy 008 XN23656576 SCA, 10/1/93-10/1/94 Provides $10.0 million excess of $40.0 million.”

       General Statutes § 14-154a provides: “Any person renting or leasing to another any motor vehicle owned by him shall be liable for any damage to any person or property caused by the operation of such motor vehicle while so rented or leased, to the same extent as the operator would have been liable if he had also been the owner.”

       The plaintiff did not bring a separate claim against Alamo in its capacity as owner of the rental vehicle. Moreover, as part of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff released Alamo from all future claims.

       General Statutes § 38a-336 (d) provides in relevant part: “If a person insured for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is an occupant of a nonowned vehicle covered by a policy also providing uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, the coverage of the occupied vehicle shall be primary and any coverage for which such person is a named insured shall be secondary. . . .” Coverage under Nicholson’s liability insurance policy, therefore, was primary, and coverage under the plaintiffs own automobile liability insurance policy was secondary.

       See General Statutes § 38a-336 (b).

       Because the dispositive issue is the defendant’s claim that the Hanover policies excluded motor vehicles owned by self-insurers from the policy definition of underinsured motor vehicles, we do not address the parties’ additional claims.

       Section 38a-334-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides 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 motorvehicle’ includes a motor vehicle insured against liability by an insurer that is or becomes insolvent. . . .
      “(c) Exclusions. The insurer’s obligations to pay may be made inapplicable:
      “(1) To any claim which has been settled with the uninsured motorist without the consent of the insurer;
      “(2) if the uninsured motor vehicle is owned by
      “(A) the named insured or any relative who is a resident of the same household or is furnished for the regular use of any of the foregoing,
      “(B) a self insurer under any motor vehicle law, or
      “(C) any government or agency thereof . . . .”

       Because our conclusion that self-insured vehicles may be excluded from both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address the parties’ remaining claims.

       General Stalutes § 38a-334 provides in relevant part: “(a) The Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations with respect to minimum provisions to be included in automobile liability insurance policies . . . . Such regulations shall relate to the insuring agreements, exclusions, conditions and other terms applicable to the bodily injury liability, property damage liability, medical payments and uninsured motorists coverages under such policies . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

       In 1968, § 38-175a-6 (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, now § 38a-334-6 (c), provided in relevant part: “The insurer’s obligations to pay may be made inapplicable . . . (2) if the uninsured automobile is owned by . . . (B) a self insurer under any motor vehicle law . . . .” See footnote 9 of this opinion.

       See Public Acts 1982, No. 82-441, §§ 20 and 23; Public Acts 1983, No. 83-267, § 2; Public Acts 1983, No. 83-461; Public Acts 1985, No. 85-7; Public Acts 1986, No. 86-403, §§ 79 and 132; Public Acts 1990, No. 90-243, § 127; Public Acts 1993, No. 93-77, §§ 2 and 4; Public Acts 1993, No. 93-297, §§ 1 and 29; Public Acts, Spec. Sess., May 25, 1994, No. 94-1, §§ 35, 36, 130.