Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
| Citation | 225 Conn. 566,624 A.2d 892 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 14601,14601 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Craig SMITH v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. |
Richard A. Silver, with whom, on the brief, were Douglas J. Gall, Stamford, and Marilyn Ramos, Fairfield, for appellant (plaintiff).
Jon S. Berk, with whom was Claudia A. Baio, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.
The issue in this case, on certification from the United States District Court, is whether the provisions of General Statutes § 52-225a 1 governing collateral 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 complaint 3 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 stipulated 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 injury 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
This 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 only 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, it 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., supra; the statutory reduction mandated by § 52-225a operates as a limitation on the amount of damages that a claimant may recover through underinsured motorist insurance. Indeed, the plaintiff acknowledges, in his brief, that the underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to a credit for collateral source payments received by the claimant insofar as such payments reduce the amount that the claimant is legally entitled to recover from the tortfeasor.
The relationship between § 52-225a and underinsured motorist protection turns, therefore, on the distinction between the amount of coverage and the amount of damages. A claimant is entitled to the full amount of his or her underinsured motorist coverage if, after the claimant's recovery from the tortfeasor has been reduced by collateral source payments in accordance with § 52-225a, the claimant's uncompensated personal and economic damages exceed the amount of the insurance coverage. A claimant's recourse to his or her underinsured motorist coverage is, however, limited in amount to less than his or her full coverage if the amount of the award against the tortfeasor for personal and economic damages, reduced in accordance with § 52-225a, results in uncompensated damages that are less than the full amount of the underinsured insurance coverage. In other words, while § 52-225a does not authorize collateral source payments to be deducted from a claimant's available underinsured motorist coverage, it does authorize such payments to enter into the calculation of the claimant's compensable injuries and losses.
The question certified by the District Court asks "Are collateral source payments under [General Statutes] § 52-225a applicable to underinsured motorist claims?" Our answer is that such payments are applicable, in accordance with the statute, to determine the amount of damages but not to determine the amount of coverage.
No costs will be taxed in this court to either party.
In this opinion the other Justices concurred.
1 General Statutes § 52-225a provides in relevant part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...the plaintiff's injuries. See Wilson v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 213 Conn. at 537-38, 569 A.2d 40.18 In Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 225 Conn. 566, 570-72, 624 A.2d 892 (1993), we concluded that § 52-225a does not affect the amount of coverage available pursuant to an uninsured and......
-
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14722
...have been recoverable if the uninsured motorist had maintained an adequate policy 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. Middl......
-
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., YALE-NEW
...see also Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra, 229 Conn. at 366-67, 641 A.2d 783; Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 225 Conn. 566, 573, 624 A.2d 892 (1993). The plaintiff's argument, however, would have her recover more than her full damages--indeed, that is the whole......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lenda
...52-225a. 9 Subsequent to the arbitration of this case and the trial court review, our Supreme Court decided Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 225 Conn. 566, 624 A.2d 892 (1993), which is dispositive of this "A claimant is entitled to the full amount of his or her underinsured motorist co......
-
The Changing Landscape of Uninsured/underinsured Mortorist Insurance Law in Connecticut
...Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 3 Conn. App. 432,489 A.2d 398, aff'd 200 Conn. 630,513 A.2d 52 (1986). 42. Smith v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 225 Conn. 566, 624 A.2d 892 43. Id. at 574, 624 A.2d at 44. P.A. 93-297 provides in relevant part: (Additions are indicated in CAPITAL; deletiuns by []).......