134 Conn. App. 112
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Motor vehicle accident in Waterbury involving plaintiff Yeager (employee) and defendant Maria Alvarez.
- Yeager’s employer Priority Care intervened to recover workers’ compensation payments; intervention granted May 14, 2007.
- Jury awarded Yeager economic damages of $396,242 and noneconomic damages of $983,998; total $1,380,240.
- Insurance tendered $300,000; by agreement, plaintiff’s attorney took $100,000 as a fee, leaving $200,000 in escrow.
- Priority Care sought apportionment under § 31-293(a) to recover remaining funds; plaintiff claimed additional reasonable and necessary expenditures should be deducted before apportionment.
- Trial court held that plaintiff’s claimed costs were not properly before the court and apportioned $200,000 to Priority Care with $30,000 escrowed for appellate fees; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §31-293(a) allows deduction of reasonable and necessary expenditures before apportionment. | Yeager argues expenditures beyond the bill of costs are recoverable. | Priority Care contends only enumerated costs apply through clerk taxation. | Expenditures may be deducted; remand for determining reasonableness/necessity. |
| Is §31-293(a) limited to costs listed in a bill of costs or broader in expenditures? | Yeager contends §31-293(a) is broader than enumerated costs. | Priority Care argues limited to formal costs as in Practice Book rules. | Statute is not so limited; expenditures may be reasonable and necessary beyond enumerated costs. |
| Relation between §31-293(a) and Practice Book §18-5 (costs in civil actions)? | Yeager contends §18-5 factors constrain apportionment costs. | Priority Care argues §18-5 governs separate civil-cost taxation. | §31-293(a) and §18-5 serve different purposes; both applicable but not interchangeable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libby v. Goodwin Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 42 Conn.App. 200 (1996) (authority on reimbursement and double recovery considerations)
- Duni v. United Technologies Corp./Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, 239 Conn. 19 (1996) (double recovery and employer reimbursement principles)
- Cruz v. Montanez, 294 Conn. 357 (2009) (statutory interpretation of apportionment provisions)
- Levesque v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 234 (2008) (costs as creature of statute; limits on what can be taxed as costs)
- Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418 (2007) (general principles on costs; distinctions between costs and expenditures)
- Mayfield v. Goshen Volunteer Fire Co., 301 Conn. 739 (2011) (interpretive construction governs rules of practice and statutes)