Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Holder, 978

• Decision Date: 12 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 978,978
• Citation: 37 Conn.Supp. 723,436 A.2d 308
• Parties: HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Willie HOLDER.
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

Page 308

436 A.2d 308

37 Conn.Supp. 723

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Willie HOLDER.

No. 978.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Appellate Session.

Argued Oct. 16, 1980.

Decided June 12, 1981.

David E. Schancupp, New Haven, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff).

Richard L. Jacobs, New Haven, for appellee-appellant (defendant).

BORDEN, Judge.

In this case we are called upon to determine the constitutionality, on equal protection grounds, of the statutory scheme created by General Statutes § 38-325(b) and (c). ¹ The plaintiff sued for reimbursement of basic reparations benefits paid by it to the defendant who thereafter settled a claim against a third-party tortfeasor. The court below held that the statutory scheme violates both the federal and state equal protection clauses, ² and rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff in an amount which deducted from the plaintiff's recovery a portion of the attorney's fee paid by the defendant in settling his claim. We hold that the statute is constitutional and remand the case for further proceedings.

I

The facts are not in dispute. The defendant, Willie Holder, was the owner and operator of a private passenger automobile which collided with a similar vehicle operated by a third-party tortfeasor on April 28, 1973. The plaintiff, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., the defendant's insurer, paid $673.12 in basic reparations benefits to the defendant, pursuant to its obligations under the no-fault motor vehicle insurance statutes, General Statutes §§ 38-319 through 38-351. The defendant subsequently received a negotiated settlement of $2187.50 from the third-party tortfeasor in compensation for all the injuries that he sustained in the collision. ³ The plaintiff demanded, under § 38-325(b), full reimbursement from the defendant for the basic reparations benefits previously paid. The defendant tendered the amount of $448.75, which represented the basic reparations benefits paid minus a pro rata deduction for the attorney's fee that he incurred in obtaining the negotiated settlement. The plaintiff refused this tender and commenced suit to obtain reimbursement for the full amount of benefits paid. The defendant filed three special defenses asserting in effect: (1) tender of the $448.75 was payment of all he was legally required to pay; (2) § 38-325 violates due process of law; and (3) § 38-325 denies him equal protection of the laws.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that the defendant was required by § 38-325(b) to make full reimbursement to the plaintiff, without any deduction for any portion of his attorney's fee, thus in effect ruling out the defendant's first special defense; and that the statutory scheme created by § 38-325(b) and (c) deprived the defendant of equal protection of the laws in violation of both the federal and state constitutions, thus in effect ruling that the defendant's third special defense was valid. Because of its conclusion on the equal protection issue, the court did not rule on the defendant's second special defense based on the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Rather than render judgment for the defendant, however, the court below sought to cure the statutory defect by rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $448.75, which represented the benefits it paid, $673.12, minus one-third of the defendant's attorney's fee, $224.37.

The plaintiff appealed from the court's decision of unconstitutionality of the statutory scheme. The defendant cross appealed, claiming that the trial court erred by not rendering judgment in his favor upon its conclusion that the statute was unconstitutional. ⁴

II

Analysis of the constitutional issue requires some discussion of the statutory scheme of the no-fault motor vehicle insurance act (hereinafter the act), chapter 690, §§ 38-319 through 38-351, of the General Statutes. Under the act an insurer is liable to pay, without regard to fault, basic reparations benefits up to a limit of $5000 for economic loss arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of private passenger motor vehicles. Private passenger motor vehicles are defined in General Statutes § 38-319(g) as, in general, private passenger automobiles, station wagons, camper type motor vehicles, and trucks with a load capacity of 1500 pounds or less registered as passenger motor vehicles or used for farming purposes. The definition expressly excludes motorcycles and motor vehicles used as public or livery conveyances.

General Statutes § 38-325 provides an insurer with a right to either direct reimbursement or to subrogation for basic reparations benefits which it previously paid to its insured, upon recovery by the insured of consequential damages, beyond the basic reparations benefits, from the third party tortfeasor who caused his injuries. The equal protection issue arises from the classification created by subsections (b) and (c) of this section. Under subsection (b), if an insured recovers from an insured operator of a private passenger motor vehicle he must, because of his insurer's lien on the recovery, make direct and full reimbursement to his insurer of the basic reparations benefits without deduction of any portion of any attorney's fee he may have incurred in obtaining that recovery. See note 3, supra. Under subsection (c), however, if an insured recovers from an operator of a motor vehicle which is not an insured private passenger motor vehicle, he need not make direct and full reimbursement to his insurer; the insurer has no direct lien on the recovery but is merely subrogated to the insured's recovery rights to the extent of the benefits paid. In that case, then, if the insured recovers he would be entitled, before remitting to his insurer the basic reparations benefits paid, to deduct therefrom a fair portion of his attorney's fee attributable to its collection. See 6A Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice (Rev.Ed.) § 4096, pp. 287-88; 16 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law (2d Ed.Sup.1980) § 61.44; note, 2 A.L.R.3d 1441, § 2; Cary v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 83 Conn. 690, 701, 78 A. 426 (1910). The practical effect of this difference in treatment in such a case as this is that if the insured is injured by an insured private passenger motor vehicle his recovery bears the full brunt of his attorney's fee and the insurer bears none; if the insured is injured by a motor vehicle which is not an insured private passenger motor vehicle, the insurer would have to share in the legal fee incurred in obtaining the recovery.

In the example given by the trial court, if an insurer pays $3000 basic reparations benefits to its insured who thereafter, with the aid of his attorney, recovers $9000 from a subsection (b) tortfeasor, the insured must reimburse his insurer the full $3000; after paying his attorney an assumed fee of one-third of his recovery, or $3000, he retains a net recovery of $3000. If the same insurer pays $3000 basic reparations benefits to the same insured who thereafter, with the aid of his attorney, recovers $9000 from a subsection (c) tortfeasor, the $9000 would be allocated, in the first instance, $3000 to the attorney, $3000 to the insured and $3000 to the insurer. But because the insurer would be merely a subrogee under subsection (c), and not a lienor under subsection (b), the insured would be entitled, before remitting the $3000 to the insurer, to deduct therefrom a fair portion of the attorney's fee attributable to its collection. Even if we assume, as did the parties and the trial court, that one-third of the attorney's fee is attributable to collection of the basic reparations benefits, the insured would only be required to reimburse his insurer $2000. After paying an attorney's fee of $3000, he would have a net recovery of $4000. Thus, under subsection (c) the insurer and insured share the brunt of the attorney's fee proportionately to each one's recovery; and the insured nets $1000 more than he does under subsection (b), a difference attributable only to the difference between the vehicles operated by the tortfeasors. The defendant asserts, and the trial court held, that this difference is without a rational basis and thus amounts to a violation of his right to equal protection of the laws.

III

A

We agree with the parties and with the trial court that, because the case involves neither a suspect classification nor a fundamental right, the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. Our Supreme Court has recently and exhaustively articulated the principles to be employed in using that test, the weight of the burden on the litigant challenging the statute and the nature of the court's task in deciding whether a rational basis exists: "Where legislation ... which neither contains a suspect classification nor impinges on a fundamental right is challenged on equal protection grounds, we have stated that the plaintiff to prevail must establish that the statutory classification is without rational basis. Waterbury Motor Lease, Inc. v. Tax Commissioner, 174 Conn. 51, 60, 381 A.2d 552 (1977); Miller v. Heffernan, (173 Conn. 506, 509, 378 A.2d 572 (1977), appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 1057, 98 S.Ct. 1226, 55 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978)); Kellems v. Brown, (163 Conn. 478, 486, 313 A.2d 53 (1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1099, 93 S.Ct. 911, 34 L.Ed.2d 678 (1973)) .... Recently, in the context of regulation of economic activity, we described the 'rational basis' test in the following manner: '(A)n act regulating economic activity must bear a reasonable relationship to a proper legislative purpose in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Carroll v. Schwartz, 127 Conn. 126, 130, 14 A.2d 754 (1940) ..... The constitutional issue is whether legislative classifications or discriminations bear "a rational relationship to a legitimate state end and (are) based on reasons related to the pursuit of that goal." Gentile v. Altermatt, 169...