Smith v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

624 A.2d 892, 225 Conn. 566, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 134
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMay 18, 1993
Docket14601
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 624 A.2d 892 (Smith v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 624 A.2d 892, 225 Conn. 566, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 134 (Colo. 1993).

Opinion

Peters, C. J.

The issue in this case, on certification from the United States District Court, is whether the provisions of General Statutes § 52-225a1 governing [568]*568collateral source payments apply to a claim for underinsured motorist benefits. The plaintiff, Craig Smith, has underinsured motorist coverage 2 under an automobile insurance policy issued to his parents by the defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of America. He sustained serious injuries in a multicar accident resulting from the negligent conduct of two underinsured drivers.

The plaintiff filed a four count complaint3 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to recover under the underinsured motorist provision of the policy issued by the defendant. In response, the defendant filed a number of affirmative defenses, including a defense alleging that “[a]ny recovery is to be reduced by collateral source payments made on behalf of the plaintiff.” The parties thereafter stipulated that counts two through four of the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. With respect to the remaining first count, they [569]*569stipulated that the defendant was paying benefits to the plaintiff, under the underinsured motorist policy, in the amount of $444,140.21, and would pay the plaintiff an additional $66,178.70 “[i]f the court holds that collateral source payments are not applicable to underinsured motorists claims . . . .” The District Court then certified to this court, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199a and Practice Book § 4168,4 the question reserved by the stipulation.5 We conclude that collateral source payments, under § 52-225a, apply to an underinsured motorist claim to reduce the amount of the claimant’s award of damages but not to diminish the amount of the coverage afforded by the underinsured motorist insurance.

We start with the text of § 52-225a (a), which provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n any civil action, whether in tort or in contract, wherein the claimant seeks to recover damages resulting from (1) personal [570]*570injury or wrongful death . . . and wherein liability is admitted or is determined by the trier of fact and damages are awarded to compensate the claimant, the court shall reduce the amount of such award which represents economic damages . . . by [unreimbursed collateral source payments in accordance with subsections (b) and (c)].” Collateral source payments are defined by General Statutes § 52-225b as payments made to a claimant pursuant to health or sickness insurance.6

The first issue raised by the certified question is whether § 52-225a applies directly to insurance contracts so as to reduce the amount of insurance coverage available to claimants who seek recourse to underinsured motorist benefits and who have received collateral source payments. Although § 52-225a applies to actions sounding in contract, as well as to actions sounding in tort, we hold that the statute does not reach that far. The statute defines the offset for collateral source payments as reducing awards for economic damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death. A claim concerning coverage under an insurance policy does not, in common parlance, give rise to an award for damages of any kind, let alone to an award for damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death. The words used in a statute must be given their commonly approved meaning, unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed. General Statutes § 1-1 (a); Superintendent of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 222 Conn. 621, 628 n.7, 609 A.2d 998 (1992); Cos Cob Volunteer Fire Co. No. 1, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 212 Conn. 100, 105, 561 A.2d 429 (1989); Martone v. Lensink, 207 Conn. 296, 302, 541 A.2d 488 (1988). We conclude, therefore, that § 52-225a does not, on its face, create a statutory offset against the coverage provided by underinsured motorist benefits.7

[571]*571This construction of § 52-225a is supported by reading the statute conjointly with other legislative mandates specifically governing underinsured motorist insurance. We presume that the legislature intends to create a harmonious and consistent body of law for statutes relating to the same subject matter. See Concerned, Citizens of Sterling, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 215 Conn. 474, 482-83, 576 A.2d 510 (1990); Dart & Bogue Co. v. Slosberg, 202 Conn. 566, 575, 522 A.2d 763 (1987). With respect to underinsured motorist claims, General Statutes § 38a-336 and the corresponding regulation, § 38a-334-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (formerly § 38-175a-6),8 not [572]*572only require automobile liability insurers to provide underinsured motorist insurance, but also limit the grounds upon which such insurance may be excluded or limited. Significantly, neither the underinsured motorist statute nor the regulation authorizes a reduction in underinsured motorist coverage because of the claimant’s receipt of collateral source payments. Cf. Lowrey v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 152, 156, 617 A.2d 454 (1992).

The second issue is whether, even if § 52-225a does not operate to reduce underinsured motorist coverage, [573]*573it may nonetheless affect a claimant’s underinsured motorist recovery by reducing the amount of the damages that the claimant may collect. We hold that the statute authorizes such a reduction in the amount of compensable damages. Under the circumstances specified in § 52-225a, a personal injury claimant who recovers an award of economic damages from a tortfeasor must have the award reduced by the amount received as collateral source payments. Under § 38a-336, underinsured motorist coverage provides insurance protection for claimants who are legally entitled to recover damages from the owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury. The public policy of § 38a-336 is to give a personal injury claimant access to insurance protection to compensate for the damages that would have been recoverable if the underinsured motorist had maintained an adequate policy of liability insurance. Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn., 222 Conn. 480, 499, 610 A.2d 1212 (1992); Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245, 249, 449 A.2d 157 (1982). Because underinsured motorist protection is not intended to provide a greater recovery than would have been available from the tortfeasor; see Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn.,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bouchard v. Wheeler
224 Conn. App. 611 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2024)
Hassett v. City of New Haven
858 A.2d 922 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2004)
Dillon v. Providence Washington Insur., No. Cv99 015 23 59 (Oct. 30, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13961 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Gohel v. Allstate Insurance
768 A.2d 950 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
Alexandru v. West Hartford Ob-Gyn, No. Hhd Cv 99-0594198 S (Nov. 28, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14797 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Skakel v. Benedict, No. Cv98 35 73 86 S (Nov. 10, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14727 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Gallimore v. General Insurance Co., No. Cv98 0358622s (Oct. 6, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13725 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Skakel v. Benedict
738 A.2d 170 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Disantis v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. Cv 96 0072255s (May 5, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6357 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Caires v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. Cv 94 036 6040 (Oct. 20, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 12002 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Fahey v. Safeco Insurance of America
714 A.2d 686 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Vitti v. Allstate Insurance
713 A.2d 1269 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Wiacek v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, No. 32 96 01 (Mar. 31, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3511 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Conzo v. Aetna Insurance
705 A.2d 1020 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Byron v. Safeco Insurance Co., No. Cv92 30 00 82 S (Dec. 15, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13538 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital
699 A.2d 964 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)
Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.
698 A.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)
Sandor v. New Hampshire Insurance
699 A.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 A.2d 892, 225 Conn. 566, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-safeco-insurance-co-of-america-conn-1993.