DocketNumber: No. CV 91-0323814
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1794
Judges: BEVERLY J. HODGSON, JUDGE
Filed Date: 2/5/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The sole issue is whether an insured who has received only a portion of a tortfeasor's liability coverage in a multi-victim accident should have her underinsured motorist recovery reduced by the full amount of the tortfeasor's coverage or, as the arbitrators determined, by only the portion of the tortfeasor's coverage that the insured actually received. The insurer does not claim that the insured failed to exhaust the tortfeasor's policy or that she was not entitled to resort to the underinsured motorist coverage of the policy with the insurer.
The arbitration award in question was issued on September 27, 1991. All members of the arbitration panel agreed that this insured had suffered damages to the extent of $92,387.92. From that amount they deducted $3,016.67 of basic reparation benefits she had received from the insurer, and, with one arbitrator dissenting, they determined that the insurer was due a credit in the amount of the payments for bodily injury the insured had actually received from the tortfeasor's coverage, that is, $12,387.92. The resulting award was $76,983.33. If the arbitrators had reduced the award by the amounts paid to all CT Page 1795 victims ($41,758.91) from the tortfeasor's coverage, the net amount to Jones would have been $47,612.34.
The insured had underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000.00 on each of three cars. Since the total damages found by the arbitrators is less than $100,000.00, there are no issues concerning stacking of coverage.
Scope of Review
The parties agree that the arbitration was not voluntary but was compelled by 38-175c(a)(1)(B), (now
The court finds that the issue as to the proper calculation of an offset is a legal determination, not a factual one, as the issues are the interpretation of statutes and regulations; regarding the provision of uninsured motorist benefits and interpretation of the provisions of the policy issued by the insurer to the insured. Accordingly, the court will undertake de novo review of the arbitrators' determination as to the correct approach to an offset.
Discussion
The insurer contends that its calculation of the offset is compelled by the following provisions of the uninsured/underinsured provisions of the policy:
Uninsured Motorists
If you have this coverage (see the Declarations), we will pay up to our limit of liability for bodily injury that is covered under this part when an insured (whether or not occupying a car) is struck by an underinsured motor vehicle. Our payment is based on the amount that an insured is legally entitled to recover for bodily injury because . . . the owner or driver responsible for the accident has liability insurance or a liability bond in an amount that is less than the limits shown for CT Page 1796 this coverage on the Declarations
and
Payments Reduced
Payments will be reduced by any amount payable by persons responsible for the accident. Payments under this part will also be reduced by any amount payable under this policy or by other sources.
The insurer claims that because $41,758.91 of the tortfeasor's coverage was "payable" to Jones, though not in fact paid to her, this entire amount should be offset from the damages found.
Provision of underinsured motorist coverage in automobile insurance policies is required by
An insurer's ability to provide contractually for reductions in the underinsured motorist benefits paid to its insureds is limited by regulation 38-175a-6(d), which states in pertinent part
the policy may provide for the reduction of limits to the extent that damages have been
1) paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury
2) paid or are payable under any workers' compensation or disability benefits law, or
3) paid under the policy in settlement of a liability claim. . . .
Pursuant to
Prudential's policy provides for a reduction of underinsured motorist coverage in amounts "payable by persons responsible for the accident." (emphasis supplied) The regulation allows, in a situation where the tortfeasor is not insured under the same policy resorted to for underinsured benefits, reduction only for amounts "paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury." (emphasis supplied).
Contrary to the insurer's contention, the rulings in CT Page 1797 American Motorists Insurance Company v. Gould,
The situation in the case at bar does not, by contrast, include the liability and underinsured coverage of the same policy. The governing regulation here is subsection (1) of 38-175a-6(d), which allows a reduction to the extent that damages have been (1) paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury. [emphasis supplied]. The court notes that subsection (2) of the same regulation uses the phrase "paid or payable," a difference in drafting which suggests that a claimant's access to underinsured coverage is not to be reduced by amounts potentially "payable" to her by the tortfeasor but actually paid to others.
The court respectfully declines to extend the reasoning of Judge Schaller in Phoenix General Insurance Co. v. Stephan, CV 318927, New Haven Judicial District (Nov. 1, 1991) to the situation presented. The ruling in that case, as in Gould, involved subsection (3) of the cited regulation, not subsection (1), and the issue was a limitation on the same insurer's total exposure under the same insurance policy, not a credit for sums paid to other victims by a different insurer.
Covenant Insurance Co. v. Coon,
The next issue is whether 38-175a-6(d)(1) should be read to allow reduction in the amount paid by a tortfeasor to all victims or only the amount paid to the particular victim claiming underinsured motorist benefits. Since the purpose of requiring CT Page 1798 underinsured motorist coverage is, as cited above, the protection of injured persons from tortfeasors who are uninsured or underinsured, it seems logical to interpret the effectuating regulations in a manner which achieves that protection from the consequences of underinsurance, that is, failure to be fully compensated for their injuries. Interpreting 38-175a6(d)(1) to reduce underinsurance benefits for amounts not paid to the claimant but to others can hardly be said to effectuate the intended protection, and this court therefore rejects the insurer's view that the reduction it favors is authorized.
An additional reason exists for rejecting the insurer's position. Even if the insurer's interpretation of the reduction were to be seen as authorized by the regulations, the policy terms do not consistently state such a limitation and must therefore be resolved in favor of the insured. The policy provisions setting forth the insurer's obligation to pay underinsured motorist benefits are explained initially, at page 7, as follows:
[t]he limit stated under Underinsured Motorists — Each Person on the Declarations is the limit of our liability less all amounts recovered for all damages, including damages for care or loss of services, arising out of bodily injury to one person as a result of any one accident.
This explanation suggests that only amounts recovered by a claimant from others — not the amount recovered from the tortfeasor by other victims — will be deducted from the underinsured limits. This term of the policy is inconsistent with the insurer's present interpretation of the sentence which appears elsewhere in the policy, that "[p]ayments will be reduced by any amount payable by persons responsible for the accident." Since the former statement is the initial explanation of the limits of underinsured motorist coverage, an insured would reasonably expect the latter sentence to be construed in a manner consistent with this initial description, which indicates a reduction for amounts recovered by a claimant. Because ambiguities in an insurance policy are to be resolved in favor of the insured, Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,
The insured urges the court to exercise its discretion pursuant to
The insurer's claim as to the interpretation of its policy language is not one which has been raised and rejected previously, and it cannot be characterized as frivolous. Imposition of interest should not be used to discourage parties from raising good faith challenges to arbitration awards in an area uncharted by controlling precedent. Accordingly, this court declines to award interest from the time of the rendering of the arbitration award, and interest shall run only from the date of this ruling. See, in accord, Hrostek v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., CV88-024943 Jud. Dis. of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Jan. 23, 1990 (Fuller, J).
Accordingly, the arbitration award in the amount of $76,983.33 is confirmed, the request for prejudgment interest is denied, and the application to vacate the award is denied.
BEVERLY J. HODGSON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT