At the appellate level, Attorney Cramer represented Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company in a significant insurance coverage issue. In Taylor v. Mucci et al, 288 Conn. 379, 952 A.2d 776 (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Metropolitan. The issue was whether an automobile policy with liability limits of $100,000 for “each person” and $300,000 for “each accident” provided separate per person coverage with respect to a claim for bystander emotional distress. The plaintiff’s son recovered the policy limit of $100,000 for injuries sustained when he was struck by a motor vehicle. The mother attempted to recover for her emotional distress after witnessing her son get struck by the vehicle. The Court, relying on the specific language in the policy held that the plaintiff could not recover under the separate “each person” portion of the policy for her claim of bystander emotional distress. The decision is significant in that the Court specifically held that emotional distress, without accompanying physical harm, does not constitute a “bodily injury” within the meaning of the liability insurance policy. The case has been cited by judges in jurisdictions throughout the United States.
Another significant appellate case handled by Attorney Cramer is Mac’s Car City v. Diloreto, 39 Conn.App. 518 (1995). Attorney Cramer represented the defendant. The facts of the case are complicated but in summary the Appellate Court held that a pre-judgment remedy attachment of real property must be “perfected” within four months after a final judgment or it is invalid even if the case is appealed. In order to “perfect” a prejudgment attachment of property counsel must file a judgment lien on the property within 4 months of the judgment. The case had significant implications as most lawyers at the time were of the opinion that there was no need to “perfect” the prejudgment lien if an appeal was taken from the judgment. The impact of the Appellate Court decision had an enormous impact in this case as the property had been transferred during the course of the appeals and the plaintiff was left without recourse to collect the judgment.