McCrea v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 204 Conn.App. 796

On November 23, 2015, Derrick Pettway’s vehicle was struck from behind by a Cumberland Farms employee; plaintiffs Yolanda McCrea and Pettway sued for negligence and vicarious liability.
Defendants admitted employment but denied injury causation; they pleaded contributory negligence as a special defense against Pettway.
At trial (March 6–8, 2019) the defense repeatedly attacked the plaintiffs’ credibility, emphasizing that plaintiffs’ attorneys referred them to particular medical providers.
The trial court allowed cross-examination about (a) selection of medical providers from counsel’s list and (b) McCrea’s prior lawsuit, but precluded plaintiffs from testifying that lack of adequate medical insurance motivated their choice of providers.
The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants; the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict.
On appeal, the appellate court held the exclusion of testimony about the plaintiffs’ lack of insurance was erroneous and harmful to plaintiffs’ ability to rehabilitate credibility, reversed the judgment, and ordered a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of cross-examination re: attorney referrals and McCrea’s prior suit	Such questioning was irrelevant and prejudicial, distracting from negligence/proximate cause	Relevant to credibility, bias, and motive to fabricate or exaggerate injuries	Court did not abuse discretion in permitting this cross-examination; questioning was relevant to credibility
Exclusion of plaintiffs’ testimony that lack of insurance caused use of counsel-referred providers	Plaintiffs needed to explain why attorneys referred them to those providers to rebut implication their treatment was litigation-driven	Exclusion justified by collateral source rule (no evidence of third-party payments); insurance issues generally not allowed	Exclusion was erroneous: collateral source rule does not bar evidence of absence of insurance; plaintiffs entitled to rehabilitate credibility; error was harmful; reversal and new trial ordered
Applicability of general verdict rule to bar appellate review	Plaintiffs argued the credibility error permeated the whole trial so general verdict rule should not shield verdict	Defendants argued special defense of contributory negligence could independently support the verdict, so general verdict rule precludes review	Court held general verdict rule did not apply because the improper exclusion of evidence undermined plaintiffs’ credibility across the entire case, leaving no untainted basis for the verdict

Acampora v. Ledewitz, 159 Conn. 377 (Conn. 1970) (collateral-source evidence admissible when relevant to witness credibility)
Capozziello v. Robinson, 102 Conn. App. 93 (Conn. App. 2007) (discussion of collateral source rule principles)
Garcia v. Cohen, 335 Conn. 3 (Conn. 2020) (explaining scope and rationale of the general verdict rule)
Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (Conn. 2004) (legislative intent and operation of statutory collateral-source reduction)
State v. Fasano, 88 Conn. App. 17 (Conn. App. 2005) (relevance of evidence relating to witness credibility and cross-examination)
Bergmann v. Newton Buying Corp., 17 Conn. App. 268 (Conn. App. 1989) (application of general verdict rule where evidentiary error affected only negligence theory)
Spears v. Elder, 124 Conn. App. 280 (Conn. App. 2010) (when evidentiary error that affects credibility can evade general verdict bar)