Florestal v. Government Employees Ins. Co., s. 14953

• Citation: 236 Conn. 299,673 A.2d 474
• Decision Date: 19 March 1996
• Docket Number: 14954,Nos. 14953,s. 14953
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Parties: Chesnel FLORESTAL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY. Judy MERZULIE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 474

673 A.2d 474

236 Conn. 299

Chesnel FLORESTAL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.

Judy MERZULIE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.

Nos. 14953, 14954.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 2, 1995.

Decided March 19, 1996.

Wesley M. Malowitz, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, was Russell J. Berkowitz, for appellants (plaintiffs).

J. Kevin Golger, Fairfield, for appellee (defendant).

Before BORDEN, BERDON, KATZ, PALMER and LANDAU, JJ.

PALMER, Justice.

The principal issue raised by these consolidated appeals is whether we should overrule our decision in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Gould, 213 Conn. 625, 569 A.2d 1105 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds, Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, 220 Conn. 30, 37, 594 A.2d 977 (1991), wherein we concluded that a tortfeasor is not underinsured within the meaning of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c(b)(2), now recodified as § 38a-336(e), ¹ unless the aggregate limits of the tortfeasor's liability insurance coverage applicable at the time of the accident are less than the underinsured motorist coverage available to the claimant. We now reaffirm our holding in Gould.

The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. The plaintiffs, Chesnel Florestal and Judy Merzulie, were traveling in an automobile owned and operated by Florestal when they sustained injuries and other damages stemming from a multivehicle traffic accident. The driver of the vehicle that caused the accident (tortfeasor) was insured under a liability policy that provided coverage of up to $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. The tortfeasor's liability insurer paid $20,000 to a claimant not a party to this action, and the remaining $20,000 was evenly divided among four other claimants, including the two plaintiffs here, each of whom received $5000.

At the time of the accident, Florestal was covered under an insurance policy issued to him by the defendant, Government Employees Insurance Company, that provided underinsured motorist coverage of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. Because that policy also covered passengers in the vehicle owned by Florestal, Merzulie was eligible for underinsured motorist benefits under the policy, as well. After settling with the tortfeasor's insurer, the plaintiffs, each of whom sustained damages exceeding $5000, submitted claims to the defendant for underinsured motorist benefits. The defendant denied coverage in both cases, and the claims were submitted to arbitration.

The arbitrator concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to § 38a-336 because the payments that they had received from the tortfeasor's insurance carrier were less than the amount of the underinsured motorist coverage available under the policy issued by the defendant. The arbitrator also found that Merzulie and Florestal were entitled to damage awards totaling $19,566.49 and $14,015.21, respectively, the awards to be reduced by the $5000 payment already made to each of them by the tortfeasor's insurer.

The plaintiffs filed applications in the Superior Court to confirm the arbitration awards and the defendant filed applications to vacate the awards. The trial court concluded that under the construction of § 38a-336(e) adopted by this court in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Gould, supra, 213 Conn. 625, 569 A.2d 1105, a vehicle is underinsured only if the total liability limits of the tortfeasor's policy are less than the limits of the claimant's underinsured motorist coverage, regardless of whether some or all of the tortfeasor's coverage has been exhausted due to payments to other injured claimants. Because the limits of Florestal's underinsured motorist coverage did not exceed the limits of the tortfeasor's liability policy, the trial court further concluded that the tortfeasor was not underinsured within the meaning of *477s 38a-336 and, accordingly, granted the defendant's applications to vacate the arbitration awards.

The plaintiffs appealed from the judgments of the trial court to the Appellate Court, ² and we transferred the appeals to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that we should reconsider and overrule our holding in Gould in favor of the construction of § 38a-336(e) adopted by the arbitrator. Alternatively, the plaintiffs maintain, first, that even if we refuse to overrule Gould, this case is distinguishable from Gould on its facts and, second, that application of our holding in Gould to the facts of this case renders § 38a-336 violative of the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We are not persuaded by any of these claims and, therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I

We first address the plaintiffs' contention that Gould should be overruled as wrongly decided. In Gould, the claimant and three others were injured when the automobile in which they were passengers was involved in a one-car accident. The driver of the automobile was insured under liability policies with limits totaling $140,000. By agreement of the parties, the $140,000 was allocated among the four passengers, with the claimant receiving $21,000. Because the claimant's damages exceeded $21,000, she thereafter sought payment under the underinsured motorist provisions of certain applicable policies, including the driver's liability policy. The arbitrator awarded the claimant underinsured motorist benefits, and the driver's insurance carrier filed an application in the Superior Court to vacate the award. The trial court denied the insurer's application and rendered judgment for the claimant. In reversing the judgment of the trial court, we rejected the claimant's argument that only the amount actually paid to her under the tortfeasor's liability policy should be considered in determining whether the operator of the automobile was underinsured. We concluded, rather, that in light of the plain language of § 38a-336 and the construction afforded similarly worded statutes in other jurisdictions, underinsured motorist benefits are not recoverable under our statutory scheme unless the limits of the underinsured motorist coverage available to the claimant exceed the total amount of liability insurance available to satisfy claims against the tortfeasor. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Gould, supra, 213 Conn. at 628-33, 569 A.2d 1105; see also Covenant Ins. Co. v. Coon, supra, 220 Conn. at 34, 594 A.2d 977.

The plaintiffs acknowledge that, if this case is not factually distinguishable from Gould, their claim for underinsured motorist benefits is foreclosed under the construction of § 38a-336 that we adopted in Gould. They maintain, however, that Gould was incorrectly decided and that benefits are recoverable under § 38a-336 when the limits of the claimant's underinsured motorist coverage exceed the amount available to the claimant under the tortfeasor's liability policy. In support of this claim, the plaintiffs contend that our holding in Gould: (1) is contrary to the intent of the legislature; (2) leads to arbitrary results; (3) is not consistent with the reasonable expectations of Connecticut insurance consumers; (4) is inconsistent with our other recent case law; and (5) will result in an increase in litigation.

Before addressing these arguments, it must be noted that we are constrained by principles of stare decisis to adhere to the precedent set by Gould in the absence of compelling reason to abandon it. See, e.g., State v. Somerville, 214 Conn. 378, 384-85, 572 A.2d 944 (1990). "Stare decisis, although not an end in itself, serves the important function of preserving stability and certainty in the law. Accordingly, 'a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it. Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., p. 226.' Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill, 142 Conn. 53, 62, 111 A.2d 4 (1955); see also State v. Somerville, [supra, at 384-85, 572 A.2d 944]; White v. Burns, 213 Conn. 307, 335-36, 567 A.2d 1195 (1990)." Kluttz v. Howard, 228 Conn. 401, 406, 636 A.2d 816 (1994). "This is especially true when the precedent involved concerns the interpretation or construction of a statute." Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill, supra, at 62, 111 A.2d 4. Bearing in mind the plaintiffs' heavy burden, we now turn to their arguments in support of overruling Gould.

The plaintiffs first claim that our construction of § 38a-336(e) is contrary to the intent of the legislature. Because the legislature has defined an underinsured motor vehicle as one with applicable policy limits less in amount than the injured victim's uninsured motorist limits; see footnote 1; the plaintiffs do not dispute that our holding in Gould is supported by a literal reading of § 38a-336(e). The plaintiffs contend, however, that a strict construction of § 38a-336(e) is inconsistent with the legislative purpose underlying the enactment of our uninsured and underinsured motorist statutes, which, they assert, is to ensure "that automobile accident victims receive fair, just and reasonable compensation for their injuries."

It is true, broadly stated, that the purpose of underinsured motorist coverage " 'is to protect the named insured and other additional insureds from suffering an inadequately compensated injury caused by an accident with an inadequately insured automobile.' " Travelers Ins. Co. v. Kulla, 216 Conn. 390, 398, 579 A.2d 525 1990). It does not follow, however, that the legislature, in providing for underinsured motorist coverage, necessarily intended to guarantee that each and every accident victim would be fully, or even adequately, compensated for injuries caused by an underinsured motorist. As we observed in Gould, "[c]ourts construing statutes like [§ 38a-336] that compare uninsured motorist coverage limits with tortfeasor liability limits have generally held that the legislative objective was...