179 Conn. App. 9
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Nov. 3, 2010, Doyle was injured in a multi-car accident involving driver Neil Nilson; Doyle sued Nilson alleging economic and noneconomic injuries and future medical needs.
- Doyle and Nilson submitted liability and damages to binding arbitration under a confidential high/low agreement (high = $100,000, the tortfeasor’s policy limit). The high/low was not disclosed to the arbitrator.
- The arbitrator awarded Doyle $105,924 (economic $15,924; noneconomic $90,000). Nilson’s insurer paid $100,000 (policy limit).
- Doyle then sued his own insurer, Universal, for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits seeking the $5,924 difference, alleging Nilson was underinsured and Doyle’s actual damages exceeded $100,000.
- Universal moved for summary judgment asserting defensive collateral estoppel based on the arbitration award; the trial court granted judgment for Doyle in the amount of $5,924 (the difference), concluding collateral estoppel barred relitigation of total damages. Doyle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the total amount of damages in Doyle’s UIM action | Doyle: arbitration high/low agreement and the fact that the tortfeasor’s insurer paid its limit do not preclude Doyle from pursuing contractual UIM benefits; arbitration was not intended to be binding beyond the $100,000 limit | Universal: arbitration actually and necessarily determined Doyle’s total damages; collateral estoppel defensively precludes Doyle from relitigating damages in his UIM claim | Held: collateral estoppel applies — the amount of damages was actually and necessarily decided in prior binding arbitration and is identical to the issue in the UIM action; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether an arbitration award that exceeds the tortfeasor’s policy limit can have preclusive effect in a subsequent UIM suit | Doyle: argues arbitration was not meant to bind beyond policy limits and thus cannot be used to bar UIM recovery | Universal: an arbitration determination of total damages is preclusive even if the tortfeasor’s insurer pays its policy limit; insurer “stands in the tortfeasor’s shoes” to the extent of coverage | Held: arbitration award is preclusive on damages even though tortfeasor’s insurer paid policy limits; plaintiff is collaterally estopped from recovering additional UIM benefits beyond the arbitrator’s damage determination |
| Whether mutuality or privity is required to invoke defensive collateral estoppel against the insured | Doyle: suggests it is inequitable that Universal (not a party to arbitration) can choose to invoke collateral estoppel | Universal: defensive collateral estoppel does not require mutuality or privity when the plaintiff previously fully litigated the issue | Held: mutuality not required for defensive collateral estoppel; application is proper where plaintiff fully and fairly litigated the issue |
| Whether permitting UIM recovery would result in impermissible double recovery | Doyle: contends his contractual entitlement to UIM benefits remains despite prior arbitration and payment | Universal: allowing additional recovery would constitute double recovery because arbitrator already fixed total damages | Held: court did not need to decide separately because collateral estoppel resolved the case by fixing total damages at the arbitration amount, precluding further recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 152 Conn. App. 69 (summary judgment standard and review)
- Doran v. First Connecticut Capital, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 318 (definition and requirements for collateral estoppel)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (mutuality not required for collateral estoppel)
- Marques v. Allstate Ins. Co., 140 Conn. App. 335 (arbitral damage determinations can preclude subsequent UIM claims)
- Doyle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 252 Conn. 79 (statutory framework and two-step inquiry for UIM coverage)