142 Conn. App. 603
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Decedent Georgette Dufresne was injured in a 2007 collision while driving insured by Allstate; her UM/UIM policy had $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident limits.
- Plaintiff, as administratrix, sued two tortfeasors, Anton Paving, LLC and Lombardi Tire and Auto Repair, LLC, and Allstate for underinsured motorist benefits.
- Plaintiff settled with Anton for $20,000 and with Lombardi for $225,000, totaling $245,000.
- Settlements occurred before any liability determinations; releases stated they were not admissions of liability.
- Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing the settlements exceeded the policy limit and therefore barred recovery; the court granted it.
- This appeal followed, with the plaintiff challenging the reliance on case law to permit reduction of UM/UIM limits in multiple tortfeasor scenarios.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether policy reductions are authorized by regulation | Guarino argues reductions must align with law; disputes congruence with regulation. | Allstate contends policy terms conform to §38a-334-6(d)(1) and are expressly authorized. | Yes; policy reduction is expressly authorized by regulation and substantially congruent. |
| Whether settlements with tortfeasors allow reduction without liability finding | Bueller? Buell-like contention that liability finding not necessary. | Settlements reduce if made by or for any party responsible for the injury to prevent double recovery. | Yes; settlements can reduce UM/UIM limits even without a finding of liability. |
| Whether Buell controls and supports summary judgment | Argues Carda or other cases require apportionment by factfinder. | Buendell/Buell controls, permitting reduction in multiple tortfeasor context. | Buuel/Buell controls; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to responsibility | No liability finding necessary to reduce under policy terms. | No genuine issue; reductions permitted when settlements with tortfeasors exceed policy limits. | No genuine issue; court properly granted judgment as a matter of law. |
| Impact of regulatory alignment with policy language | Policy should be scrutinized for congruence with regulation; argues misalignment. | Policy text substantially congruent with regulation; proper reduction authorized. | Policy reduction deemed substantially congruent and authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buell v. American Universal Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 766 (Conn. 1993) (insurer may deduct settlements to avoid double recovery under UM/UIM rules)
- Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Farrish-LeDuc, 275 Conn. 748 (Conn. 2005) (regulatory framework permits reductions in UM/UIM limits)
- Anastasia v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 307 Conn. 706 (Conn. 2013) (policy reduction must be substantially congruent with regulation)
- Jacaruso v. Lebski, 118 Conn. App. 216 (Conn. App. 2009) (supports express authorization of reductions similar to regulation terms)
- Savoie v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 84 Conn. App. 594 (Conn. App. 2004) (relevant for underinsured policy reduction reasoning in multiple tortfeasor context)
- Carda v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 72 Conn. App. 588 (Conn. App. 2002) (apportionment question in UM/UIM contexts; not dispositive here)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ferrante, 201 Conn. 478 (Conn. 1986) (regulatory authorization and interpretation of UM/UIM reductions)