Bodner v. United Services Auto. Ass'n

Decision Date16 June 1992
Docket NumberNos. 14373,14374,s. 14373
Citation610 A.2d 1212,222 Conn. 480
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesJoseph A. BODNER v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. Joseph A. BODNER.

Enrico Vaccaro, West Hartford, for appellant-appellee in the first case and appellee in the second case (Joseph A. Bodner).

Jack D. Miller, Hartford, for appellee-appellant in the first case and appellant in the second case (United Services Auto. Ass'n).

Constance L. Epstein and Jack G. Steigelfest, Hartford, filed a brief, for Nat. Ass'n of Independent Insurers as amicus curiae.

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, COVELLO, BORDEN and BERDON, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether common law punitive damages are recoverable under the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile insurance policy. Joseph A. Bodner (Bodner) was injured when the car that he was driving was struck by an uninsured motor vehicle. In order to recover damages from his insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), he made a written demand for arbitration pursuant to his insurance policy. After the arbitration panel made a written award, each of the parties made a separate application for a judicial modification thereof. Upon consolidation of the applications in the trial court, that court denied in its entirety Bodner's application to correct and modify the award and granted USAA's application in part. Both parties then appealed to the Appellate Court, and we transferred both cases to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The following facts are undisputed. On January 25, 1985, the car that Bodner was driving was stopped at a red light when it was struck from behind by an uninsured motor vehicle owned and operated by Kenneth Church. At that time, Bodner was covered by a USAA automobile insurance policy that included coverage for damages caused by an uninsured motorist. Bodner suffered injuries as a result of the collision, and made a claim against USAA pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of his insurance policy. When they could not agree on the amount of damages, Bodner demanded arbitration, as provided in the policy. 1

At the arbitration proceeding, Bodner sought both compensatory damages and common law punitive damages for Church's reckless misconduct. The arbitration panel, with one of the three members dissenting, concluded that Bodner was entitled to an award of $651,438.99, calculated as follows:

                Past medical treatment                                 $ 10,249.00
                Future medical treatment                                 20,000.00
                Pain and suffering, permanent injury and disabilities   225,000.00
                 Past lost earnings                                     155,475.99
                Future lost earnings                                    240,714.00
                TOTAL:                                                 $651,438.99
                ----------
                

Because it had been stipulated that $6832.67 had already been advanced by USAA, the arbitrators' net award was $644,606.32. The panel found that Church's misconduct would have supported an award of punitive damages in a liability case against him, but held that such damages were barred, as a matter of law, by General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 38-175c (now § 38a-336) 2 and by the insurance policy.

Bodner brought an application in Superior Court to confirm the award of compensatory damages, to correct or modify so much of the award as denied him punitive damages, and for interest on the award pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a. USAA brought an application to vacate the award and to correct or modify with respect to so much of the award as represented future medical expenses and past and future lost earnings.

After consolidation of the applications, the trial court rendered a judgment denying Bodner's application to correct or modify the award to add punitive damages, but awarded him prejudgment interest from February 19, 1991, the date of the arbitrators' decision. The court denied USAA's application insofar as it sought to vacate the award in its entirety and insofar as it sought to vacate that part of the award representing damages for past and future lost earnings. The court, however, granted USAA's application to delete from the award the $20,000 awarded for future medical treatment. The court accordingly rendered judgment for Bodner in the net amount of $624,606.32 plus interest. Both parties then appealed to the Appellate Court. We transferred both cases to ourselves pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. We reverse the trial court's decision to delete the $20,000 that was awarded for future medical treatment, and affirm the remainder of its judgment.

I

Bodner maintains, on appeal, that the trial court: (1) improperly deleted $20,000 for future medical treatment from his arbitration award and (2) improperly refused to add a sum for punitive damages to his arbitration award. We agree with the first of these claims, but not with the second.

A

The trial court undertook a de novo review of the propriety of the arbitration award for future medical treatment. Since the propriety of that portion of the award involved a question of law, the court concluded that a de novo review was required by § 38-175c (a)(1), as interpreted by American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, 205 Conn. 178, 530 A.2d 171 (1987). We disagree with the court's interpretation of DelGreco.

In DelGreco, we held that "where judicial review of compulsory arbitration proceedings required by § 38-175c (a)(1) is undertaken under General Statutes § 52-418, the reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the interpretation and application of the law by the arbitrators." Id., at 191, 530 A.2d 171. 3 Our holding rested on the difference between voluntary arbitration and compulsory arbitration. "[V]oluntary arbitration and compulsory arbitration are fundamentally different if only because one may, under our system, consent to almost any restriction upon or deprivation of right, but similar restrictions or deprivations, if compelled by government, must accord with procedural and substantive due process." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 187, 530 A.2d 171. To insulate statutorily mandated arbitration awards from judicial review for errors of law "creates the anomaly that, without the consent of the parties, arbitrators are empowered to disregard the law in deciding issues affecting substantial rights." Id., at 188, 530 A.2d 171.

The case is different where "the parties voluntarily bargained for the decision of the arbitrator and, as such, the parties are presumed to have assumed the risks of and waived objections to that decision." Id., at 186-87, 530 A.2d 171. " 'We have recognized that when arbitration is consensual, rather than statutorily imposed, judicial review is limited in scope.... If the parties mutually agree to submit their dispute to arbitration, the resulting award is not reviewable for errors of law or fact.... Judicial review of unrestricted submissions is limited to a comparison between the submission and the award to see whether, in accordance with the powers conferred upon the arbitrators, their award conforms to the submission.' (Citations omitted.) New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988)." Hartford v. Board of Mediation & Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989).

In this case, the trial court assumed that the arbitration proceedings had been compulsory with respect to every issue before the arbitrators. The record does not support that conclusion. DelGreco relied upon a provision of § 38-175c that states: "Every [automobile liability insurance policy] ... which contains a provision for binding arbitration shall include a provision for final determination of insurance coverage in such arbitration proceeding." This provision, we have held, makes arbitration of insurance coverage issues compulsory. Wilson v. Security Ins. Group, 199 Conn. 618, 622-24, 509 A.2d 467 (1986). The statute does not say, however, and we have never held, that any other issues arising under an uninsured motorist policy are required to be arbitrated. In this case, coverage of Bodner's personal injuries was not disputed, and the only question involving those injuries that was before the arbitrators was the amount of damages. In that regard, the arbitrators derived their authority not from the statute, but from the contract between the parties. 4 Arbitration of this issue was, therefore, voluntary, and judicial review of the arbitrators' decision is limited to determining whether the award conforms to the submission. Because § 38-175c does not require arbitration of noncoverage issues, the arbitrators' resolution of those issues is not subject to de novo review. See New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Parkin, 1990 WL 265337 Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 701480 (December 13, 1990).

USAA contends, however, that even if the arbitration proceeding was, in principle, contractual and voluntary, the specific terms of the arbitral referral in this case made the arbitration restricted rather than unrestricted, so that the normal deference to the award of the arbitrators does not apply. USAA reminds us of past decisions in which our finding that arbitration proceedings were unrestricted placed significant weight on the parties' failure to submit any specific questions to the arbitrator. See Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 20, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983); Malecki v. Burnham, 181 Conn. 211, 213, 435 A.2d 13 (1980); Ramos Iron Works, Inc. v. Franklin Construction Co., 174 Conn. 583, 588, 392 A.2d 461 (1978). Where specific questions have been submitted to the arbitrators, we have held that the portion of the arbitrators' award that was entirely outside the submission was void. See Local...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Blondeau v. Baltierra
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 24 de setembro de 2020
    ...that an invalid portion of an arbitration award may be severed from the remainder of the award. See Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn. , 222 Conn. 480, 489, 610 A.2d 1212 (1992) ("[when] specific questions have been submitted to the arbitrators, we have held that the portion of the ......
  • MedValUSA Health Programs v. MEMBERWORKS
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 17 de maio de 2005
    ... ... to due process under the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution and violated the state's public policy ... , prescription, hearing and other medically-related services to targeted segments of the general public. The defendant ... American Arbitration Assn., Inc., 233 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir.2000) ... Moreover, it ... , to the exclusion of traditional punitive damages; Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn., 222 Conn. 480, 492, ... ...
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pasiak
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 19 de dezembro de 2017
    ...policy to construe a policy to indemnify a wrongdoer for punitive damages. As support, they cite Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn., 222 Conn. 480, 497–98, 610 A.2d 1212 (1992), wherein this court stated that "a tortfeasor may not protect himself from liability by seeking indemnity ......
  • Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14722
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 17 de maio de 1994
    ...of liability insurance. Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 225 Conn. 566, 573, 624 A.2d 892 (1993); Bodner v. United Services Automobile Assn., 222 Conn. 480, 499, 610 A.2d 1212 (1992); Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 219 Conn. 371, 377, 593 A.2d 498 (1991); Harvey v. Trav......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Punitive damages: when, where and how they are covered.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 62 No. 4, October 1995
    • 1 de outubro de 1995
    ...damages not recoverable under uninsured motorist provision of automobile policy). Bodner v. United Services Automobile Association, 610 A.2d 1212 (Conn.App. 1992) (attorney's fees assessed as punitive damages not recoverable under uninsured motorist provision of automobile policy). Avis Ren......
  • Insurance Coverage Litigation in Connecticut: Is There a Level Playing Field in the "insurance State"?
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 74, 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...71 United Tech. Corp., 989 F. Supp. at 153. 72 989 F. Supp. 159 (D. Conn. 1997). 73 Id. at 166. 74 Bodner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 222 Conn. 480, 492, 610 A.2d 1212, 1219 (1992). 75 Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842, 849, 643 A.2d 1282, 1286 (1994). 76 Id. at 848 n.4 ("We decli......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT