Overview:
A legal battle stemming from the theft of a 2020 Sea Hunt 27 Gamefish boat at Clinton Harborside Marina has reached its conclusion. Progressive Direct Insurance Company sought damages from the marina, while the boat’s owner filed a separate action. Both lawsuits, including a motion to reargue, were denied by the court. The case highlights questions of marina liability, insurance obligations, and the limits of arbitration provisions when negligence claims are raised.
Clinton, CT – Legal Battle Over a Stolen Boat
A Connecticut court has officially closed the books on a closely watched case involving the theft of a 2020 Sea Hunt 27 Gamefish from Clinton Harborside Marina, LLC in 2022.
The dispute began when Progressive Direct Insurance Company, represented by attorney Michael J. McCabe of McCabe, Wikstrom & Barney, LLC, filed suit claiming the marina was negligent in safeguarding the vessel. Progressive had already paid more than $130,000 to its insured, Greg D. Donofrio, and sought to recover damages.
Contract and Insurance Obligations
Central to the case was a clause in the Exclusive Listing Agreement signed between Donofrio and Clinton Harborside Marina. The contract explicitly stated that the owner must maintain insurance on the vessel.
While Progressive sought to recover funds as Donofrio’s insurer, the existence of this contract language complicated liability arguments. The marina’s defense maintained that the insurance responsibility fell on the boat’s owner and that the theft was not attributable to negligence.
The Arbitration Question
In the early stages, the marina moved to stay the proceedings, pointing to arbitration language in the agreement. Progressive objected, contending that the claims were rooted in negligence, not contractual disputes.
Judge Domnarski agreed, ruling that the arbitration clause applied only to listing-related matters—not to theft or negligence. The court denied Progressive’s negligence claims to move forward but kept a tight scope on arbitration issues.
Boat Owner Files a Separate Action
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Donofrio separately retained Solimene & Secondo LLP and filed a second action (case number MMX-CV24-6042367-S), again asserting negligence claims against Clinton Harborside.
The second action included a Motion to Reargue/Reconsider, in which Donofrio’s counsel argued that arbitration should not prevent the case from being heard in full and that ambiguity in the contract language should be construed against the marina.
Judge Rejects Reconsideration
On May 20, 2025, the Connecticut court denied the motion. In its order, the court cited Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel (2012), reaffirming that a motion to reargue is not to be “a second bite at the apple.”
The judge emphasized that the motion to stay had been unopposed for nine months, and the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to present arguments earlier. The court concluded that neither Progressive nor Donofrio had grounds to reopen the case, effectively shutting down both legal efforts.
Broader Implications
While this case is now closed, it highlights recurring questions for boat owners, marinas, and insurers:
- Who bears ultimate responsibility when theft occurs at a storage or consignment facility?
- How do insurance contracts and bailment law intersect in such disputes?
- To what extent should arbitration clauses limit negligence claims?
The Connecticut rulings suggest courts may be hesitant to extend liability to marinas when owners are contractually responsible for maintaining insurance.
For insurers and policyholders alike, the outcome serves as a reminder to carefully review coverage terms and contractual obligations before litigation arises.
More at Presence News:
