210 Conn.App. 347
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- On March 30, 2015 plaintiff was injured in a motor-vehicle collision and settled with the tortfeasor for $20,000.
- Plaintiff sued her insurer (Liberty Mutual) for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits; the complaint alleged the $20,000 settlement was insufficient and that the insurer was liable for damages in excess of that amount.
- Parties (plaintiff, Liberty Mutual, and LM General) agreed to binding arbitration and signed a written arbitration agreement: arbitrator to determine a "Gross Award," deduct collateral-source economic damages to reach a "Net Award," and apply a confidential high/low (net between $2,500 and $32,500).
- Arbitrator awarded $33,807.50 ($13,807.50 economic; $20,000 noneconomic), made no findings on collateral sources or offsets, and later articulated the award was a "full value" award that did not account for collateral sources or the $20,000 tortfeasor settlement.
- Parties agreed collateral sources totaled $1,020.02 but disagreed whether the $20,000 tortfeasor settlement should be deducted; plaintiff sought confirmation of a $32,500 payment, defendant argued the $20,000 offset applied.
- Trial court confirmed the award but deducted $1,020.02 and $20,000, announcing a $12,500 judgment; on appeal the court of appeals held the deduction was proper to conform the award to the arbitration agreement but corrected the arithmetic to $12,787.48.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could deduct the $20,000 tortfeasor settlement from the arbitrator's award absent a statutory motion to modify/correct/vacate | DiTullio: court lacked statutory or common-law authority; award must be confirmed as issued | LM General: award should be conformed to the arbitration agreement and UIM claim (defendant liable only for damages exceeding $20,000) | Court: deduction proper — not a modification of the award but effectuation of the parties' written agreement (parties submitted only total damages to arbitrator while preserving agreement limits) |
| Whether the trial court miscalculated the post-deduction judgment amount | DiTullio: sought $32,500 under the high/low provision | LM General: offset and collateral sources reduce amount due | Court: trial court erred in math; correct net award = $33,807.50 − $1,020.02 − $20,000 = $12,787.48 |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 (1997) (UIM purpose: put insured in same, not better, position as if tortfeasor fully insured)
- Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 49 Conn. App. 306 (1998) (no duplicate payments for same element of loss under UIM)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005) (limited judicial review of unrestricted arbitration awards)
- State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, Dist. 1199, AFL-CIO, 265 Conn. 771 (2003) (judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined)
- Levine v. Advest, Inc., 244 Conn. 732 (1998) (arbitration agreements governed by contract interpretation rules)
- O'Connor v. Waterbury, 286 Conn. 732 (2008) (contract ambiguity principles; contract given effect when unambiguous)