Connecticut Court Rules Man Charged in Arson May Sue Insurer

A Connecticut man charged with burning down his beach home hours before he was supposed to give it to his estranged wife may sue the home’s insurer for emotional distress, the state Appellate Court has ruled.

Richard Shenkman, 62, is also accused of kidnapping his ex-wife and holding her hostage for hours during a police standoff two years later in a different home and burning that one down as well.

In the beach home case, Shenkman alleges that Central Mutual Insurance Co. decided not to cover the 2007 loss of the home in East Lyme after wrongly concluding without an independent investigation that he burned it down. He is seeking an undetermined amount of damages in a lawsuit filed in 2008 at New London Superior Court.

Shenkman, a former advertising executive, is jailed without bail on arson and other charges related to the beach home fire, and the 2009 standoff and fire in South Windsor. He awaits trial in both cases.

Superior Court Judge Emmet Cosgrove was wrong to dismiss Shenkman’s emotional distress claims last year, the Appellate Court ruled, but it upheld Cosgrove’s dismissal of other allegations Shenkman made against Central Mutual.

Shenkman has the standing to allege that Central Mutual’s conduct “caused him direct harm,” Judge Lubbie Harper Jr. wrote in the unanimous decision, which sends Shenkman’s case back to Superior Court.

Shenkman and his ex-wife, medical malpractice lawyer Nancy Tyler, were married in 1993. Tyler filed for divorce in 2006 and it was finalized two years later after lengthy legal fights. The divorce ruling gave Tyler the East Lyme house and awarded her all the proceeds of any insurance settlement related to the fire there.

Though Shenkman has no stake in the East Lyme property or any insurance settlement related to the fire, he’s suing Central Mutual on principle, said his lawyer, Benjamin Gettinger.

“He honestly believes he’s entitled to monetary damages for the insurance company’s actions,” Gettinger said. “I commend the Appellate Court for making the right decision. I’m glad to see in Connecticut that we still have checks and balances in the judicial system even when the decision is not popular.”

It’s not clear whether Central Mutual plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Messages were left for the company’s lawyer and spokesmen. If the decision isn’t appealed, discovery could continue in the case as it heads for potential jury selection in New London.

Topics Lawsuits Carriers Legislation Connecticut