342 Conn. 226
Conn.2022Background
- Decedent James Caverly died from hemorrhagic complications after warfarin therapy while under care at UConn John Dempsey Hospital.
- Ronald Caverly (administrator) filed a notice with the Claims Commissioner and received authorization to sue the State for up to $5 million for medical malpractice.
- Before the Claims Commissioner issued a final decision, Caverly sued CVS Pharmacy in state/federal court for negligent filling of prescriptions; that CVS action settled for $2 million.
- The State moved to dismiss Caverly’s suit against the State under sovereign immunity, relying on General Statutes § 4-160b(a) (no acceptance/payment of any subrogated claim or any claim directly or indirectly paid by or assigned to a third party).
- The trial court denied the motion, holding § 4-160b(a) covers subrogated/assigned claims, not payments by joint tortfeasors; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4-160b(a) bars suit against the State when plaintiff settled with a joint tortfeasor | Caverly: CVS settlement did not subrogate or assign the claim against the State; CVS suit was a separate claim against a private party | State: CVS’s $2M settlement indirectly paid the plaintiff’s claim, so § 4-160b(a) preserves sovereign immunity | Held: § 4-160b(a) applies to claims for money against the State; CVS settlement did not indirectly pay a claim against the State; denial of dismissal affirmed |
| Meaning of “claim” under chapter 53 (§ 4-141(1)) | Caverly: “Claim” means a petition for money from the State (permission to sue the State), not private suits | State: “Claim” should be read to avoid double recovery and include contexts like settlements with third parties | Held: “Claim” refers only to monetary claims against the State (petition/payment/refund or permission to sue the State) |
| Whether the CVS settlement bars recovery against the State via double recovery/release rules | Caverly: Settlement with CVS does not satisfy or adjudicate damages against State; settlement is compromise, not full satisfaction | State: Common-law double recovery or release of joint tortfeasors should bar or limit the State suit | Held: Double recovery doctrine does not bar this suit—no damages judgment was rendered/paid; settlement is not equivalent to satisfaction of a judgment |
| Remedies available to the State to avoid duplicative recovery | Caverly: Claims Commissioner’s authorization preceded settlement, so claim was accepted before payment | State: Even if suit proceeds, it can seek apportionment or use settlement evidence to reduce liability | Held: State may file notice of apportionment or introduce evidence of the CVS settlement at trial (especially in a bench trial) to avoid duplicative recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. Gershon, 271 Conn. 96 (2004) (chapter 53 claims pertain exclusively to monetary claims against the State; permission to sue relates to monetary claims)
- Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 340 Conn. 711 (2021) (multiple suits against joint tortfeasors permitted, but only one satisfaction of loss; judgment satisfaction bars double recovery)
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67 (1989) (rule against double recovery and effect of paid judgment/release)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (2003) (sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction; denial of motion to dismiss based on colorable sovereign immunity claim is immediately appealable)
- Robbins v. Physicians for Women’s Health, LLC, 311 Conn. 707 (2014) (definition and application of joint tortfeasor concepts)
- Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53 (1985) (admissibility of settlement/release evidence in bench trials to aid the court in awarding fair compensation)