A federal judge has granted summary judgment to Plymouth Rock Home Assurance Corporation, concluding that the insurer was entitled to deny coverage for a fire loss due to the policyholder’s repeated failure to provide required documentation during the claim investigation.
In Billie v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp., No. 3:22-cv-1608 (SVN), the US District Court for the District of Connecticut held that plaintiff Caribe D. Billie materially breached the “Duties After Loss” provision of his homeowners insurance policy. Judge Sarala V. Nagala ruled that this breach relieved the insurer of any obligation to pay Billie's claim.
Mr. Billie purchased a property at 35 Wall Street in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2019 for $16,000 at a tax auction. Initially acquired as an investment, the property was unoccupied and was later used without permits as a boarding house. The City of Waterbury ordered the structure boarded up in September 2020 and relocated its unauthorized occupants. Billie testified that he then moved into the home with family members.
On October 30, 2020, Plymouth Rock Home issued a homeowners insurance policy for the property. One month later, on December 1, 2020, the structure caught fire. At the time, the house had no electrical service and had recently failed inspection. A city fire report noted evidence of ongoing renovations, vagrant activity in the attic, and found a lit candle, a space heater, and a generator. The fire’s cause was inconclusive but was believed to be human in origin.
Following the fire, Mr. Billie submitted a claim for $226,991.45. During its investigation, Plymouth Rock Home discovered that this was Mr. Billie’s fourth fire-related insurance claim. He had previously received more than $289,000 in connection with two claims for a Bridgeport property in 2017, over $200,000 for a 2018 claim in Derby, and an unspecified amount related to a vehicle fire in 2016 or 2017.
As part of its investigation, Plymouth Rock Home, through counsel John Leslie, requested that Mr. Billie provide financial records, tax returns, documentation of property improvements, and other materials. Between February 2021 and September 2022, the insurer made multiple follow-up requests. Mr. Billie, working with public adjuster John Cotter, submitted only a partial set of documents and never provided credit card statements, tax returns, or complete bank records, including those covering the one-year period before the fire.
The insurer invoked the “Duties After Loss” section of the policy, which states:
“We have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us…
5. Cooperate with us in the investigation of a claim;
7. As often as we reasonably require:
a. Show the damaged property;
b. Provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies; and
c. You… must:
(1) Submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements…
(2) Sign the same.”
The policy also bars legal action against the insurer unless these conditions are met.
Judge Nagala concluded that Mr. Billie’s noncompliance was both material and prejudicial. Although the insurer conducted an examination under oath in July 2021, Mr. Billie never produced critical documents needed to assess the claim. The court emphasized that this failure obstructed the insurer’s ability to evaluate whether financial motive or fraud was a factor in the loss.
The court also dismissed Mr. Billie’s claim under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), pursued through the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Mr. Billie cited complaints filed with the state insurance department but conceded during his deposition that the examples were not specific to Plymouth Rock Home. The court found no evidence that the company engaged in unfair settlement practices as a “general business practice,” a necessary element under CUIPA.
Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation, which had been improperly named as a defendant. The insurer that issued the policy was Plymouth Rock Home Assurance Corporation, and Mr. Billie did not present any argument or evidence to support claims against the former.
Mr. Billie filed the case in state court in November 2022, just before receiving the insurer’s written denial of his claim. The case was removed to federal court, where he proceeded pro se. He missed multiple deadlines and failed to oppose the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, even after the court extended his response deadline twice and ensured he was notified of the legal consequences.
Judge Nagala granted summary judgment to both defendants, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact remained. The decision affirms the enforceability of cooperation clauses and the consequences of breaching post-loss duties under homeowners insurance contracts.
Case Name: Billie v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.
Case Number: 3:22-cv-1608 (SVN)
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Date of Decision: March 24, 2025
Judge: Hon. Sarala V. Nagala
