C.N.A. Ins. Co. v. Colman
| Decision Date | 03 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 9846,9846 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | C.N.A. INSURANCE COMPANY v. Frank COLMAN et al. |
Lawrence V. Parnoff, with whom, on the brief, was Kathryn L. Braun, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
Jan C. Trendowski, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Justin J. Donnelly, Sr., Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and FOTI and LANDAU, JJ.
This case presents the issue of whether the Connecticut workers' compensation statute bars an employee from seeking recovery from the underinsurance benefits available under his employer's personal automobile liability policy. Because we hold that the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers' compensation statute, General Statutes § 31-284, 1 do not prohibit an employee from obtaining benefits pursuant to the underinsurance coverage of his employer's personal automobile policy, we reverse the decision of the trial court granting the plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award.
The defendant 2 was injured in an automobile collision while acting within the scope of his employment and operating an automobile owned by his employer. His employer's automobile, along with three other vehicles owned by the employer, was insured under a personal automobile policy issued by the plaintiff insurance company. Each of the vehicles carried $40,000 in uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage. After exhausting the tortfeasor's liability coverage of $20,000 and receiving workers' compensation benefits of $38,758.67, the defendant commenced a compulsory arbitration proceeding seeking underinsured motorist benefits from his employer's underinsured motorist coverage.
The arbitration panel concluded that the Connecticut workers' compensation statute does not preclude further recovery against the employer's underinsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff then filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court granted that application, concluding that the defendant's claim is barred by this court's decision in Ross v. New Haven, 19 Conn.App. 169, 561 A.2d 457, cert. granted, 212 Conn. 814, 565 A.2d 536 (1989). 3 After Ross was decided, however, our Supreme Court effectively overruled Ross in the case of Wilson v. Security Ins. Co., 213 Conn. 532, 569 A.2d 40, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 52, 112 L.Ed.2d 28 (1990).
In Wilson, an employee was allowed to recover uninsured motorist benefits where the employer had obtained a separate uninsured motorist policy from an outside insurer. We have concluded in our recent case of Bouley v. Norwich, 25 Conn.App. 492, 595 A.2d 884 (1991), that Wilson is the present law and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouley v. City of Norwich
...Court subsequently determined, however, in Bouley v. Norwich, 25 Conn.App. 492, 495, 595 A.2d 884 (1991), and CNA Ins. Co. v. Colman, 25 Conn.App. 651, 653, 595 A.2d 949 (1991), that Ross was no longer controlling following this court's decision in Wilson v. Security Ins. Co., supra. We do ......
-
CNA Ins. Co. v. Colman
...to vacate the award. As a result of Colman's appeal to the Appellate Court, the arbitral award was reinstated. CNA Ins. Co. v. Colman, 25 Conn.App. 651, 595 A.2d 949 (1991). We then granted CNA's petition for certification 4 and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate The pertinent facts ......
-
C.N.A. Ins. Co. v. Colman
...Laurence V. Parnoff, Bridgeport, in opposition. The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 25 Conn.App. 651, 595 A.2d 949, is granted, limited to the following "Is an employee who is injured in the course of his employment and who has received workers' c......