324 Conn. 70
Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiff James Marciano was injured in a motor-vehicle accident and a jury awarded $84,283.67 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages (total $124,283.67).
- Plaintiff’s medical expenses were largely paid by a self-funded ERISA plan provided by his employer (UPS), managed by Aetna; plaintiff himself paid $1,941.49 toward bills.
- The defendants moved for a collateral source reduction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225a to offset the economic award by insurance payments; the trial court reduced the award after subtracting the plaintiff’s cost to obtain benefits.
- The plan contained a contractual right of subrogation/reimbursement in favor of UPS; UPS (through correspondence) indicated it would accept $6,940.19 in full satisfaction in the event of a settlement, but no settlement occurred.
- Plaintiff objected, arguing that § 52-225a bars any collateral source reduction when any right of subrogation exists and that the trial court’s reduction violated the statute; the trial court nevertheless reduced the judgment and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-225a permits any collateral source reduction when a right of subrogation exists | Marciano: statute bars any reduction if any right of subrogation exists (even partially). | Defendants: reduction is required to avoid double recovery; if subrogation is limited or extinguished (e.g., $6,940.19), reduction may be made for amounts exceeding that. | The court held § 52-225a unambiguously precludes any collateral source reduction when any right of subrogation exists, so the trial court’s reduction was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (court applies plenary review and strict construction to § 52-225a)
- Gipson v. Commissioner of Correction, 257 Conn. 632 (interpretation of the word "any"/"any" as broad)
- Jones v. Riley, 263 Conn. 93 (legislative purpose of § 52-225a to prevent double recovery)
- Pikulski v. Waterbury Hospital Health Center, 269 Conn. 1 (statute balances barring double recovery and protecting defendants from reduced judgments)
- Saint Bernard School of Montville, Inc. v. Bank of America, 312 Conn. 811 (discussion of collateral source rule and windfalls)
- Cruz v. Montanez, 294 Conn. 357 (courts must construe statutes as written; cannot add exceptions)
- State v. Banks, 321 Conn. 821 (use of "shall" indicates mandatory command)