Guarino v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 315 Conn. 249

Decedent Georgette Dufresne died in a car crash; plaintiff Michelle Guarino (administratrix) sued two property owners (Anton Paving and Lombardi Tire) alleging their parked vehicles obstructed a stop sign and caused the collision.
Dufresne carried underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with Allstate with $100,000 per person limits; the policy reduced UIM limits by “all amounts paid by or on behalf of the owner or operator of the uninsured auto or underinsured auto or anyone else responsible.”
Guarino settled with Anton for $20,000 (release disclaiming liability) and later settled with Lombardi for $225,000 (release disclaiming liability); no stipulation of fault in either release.
After the Lombardi settlement, Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing the aggregate settlements ($245,000) exhausted the $100,000 UIM limit; trial court granted judgment for Allstate; Appellate Court affirmed.
On certified appeal, Guarino argued a trier of fact must apportion fault and damages before any setoff for settlement payments (relying on Collins/Garcia); Allstate argued settlements that compensate for the accident reduce UIM coverage dollar-for-dollar under statute/regulation and precedent.
Supreme Court held that where all identified tortfeasors settle for an aggregate sum exceeding the UIM limit, the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and apportionment is not required for reduction of policy limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insurer may reduce UIM limits dollar-for-dollar by aggregate settlements when all tortfeasors settled for amounts exceeding policy limits	Guarino: A factfinder must first apportion fault and damages among tortfeasors; setoff cannot fully extinguish UIM coverage without apportionment (relying on Collins/Garcia)	Allstate: Policy and regulation permit reduction of UIM limits by amounts paid ‘‘by or on behalf of . . . anyone else responsible’’; aggregate settlements that compensate for the accident extinguish coverage	Held for Allstate: Where all identified tortfeasors settle in aggregate for more than the UIM limit, insurer entitled to judgment as a matter of law; apportionment not required to reduce policy limits

Buell v. American Universal Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 766 (1993) (settlements by multiple motorists may reduce UIM coverage by aggregate amount even if liability not litigated)
Collins v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 257 Conn. 718 (2001) (nonsettling tortfeasor has statutory right to apportionment; uninsured motorist carrier standing in for unidentified driver triggers apportionment rules)
Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Farrish-LeDuc, 275 Conn. 748 (2005) (settlement that is the functional equivalent of payment on behalf of a responsible party may reduce UIM limits)
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 243 Conn. 17 (1997) (UIM statutory policy: insured entitled to recover what would have been recoverable from adequately insured tortfeasor)
Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (1997) (distinction between tort liability litigation and contract action to recover insurance benefits; insurer not bound by insured’s tort verdict)