Opinion
No. CV-06-5001037
March 26, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The present action is an underinsurance motorist claim. The defendant insurance company moves for a remittitur of the judgment rendered by the court on the jury's verdict claiming that it is a larger sum than is legally due under the policy. More particularly, the defendant is seeking a reduction from the applicable insurance coverage of the amounts that the plaintiff received from the tortfeasor and a workers' compensation carrier.
This matter was tried before a jury. The parties agreed on all insurance issues prior to trial, including that the plaintiff was an underinsured claimant under the applicable policy and the amount of underinsured motorist coverage. Consequently, the matter was presented to the jury solely as a negligence action.
The jury returned a verdict on January 24, 2008 and found all issues in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the jury determined that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of $334,469.47 in total damages.
The defendant filed a Motion for Remittitur on January 29, 2008 requesting that the court correct the verdict and render judgment on the verdict in the amount of $25,000. The basis for the defendant's motion is its claim that under the applicable policy it is entitled to a credit in the amount of $50,000 paid by the tortfeasor and the amount of $25,000 received by the plaintiff from a workers' compensation carrier. The amounts of paid to the plaintiff by the tortfeasor and the worker's compensation carrier are not in dispute. Rather, the dispute between the parties concerns the defendant's claim that it is entitled to reduce the coverage limits by the amount of those payments. In this regard, the defendant relies on Section 38a-334-6(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Those sections provide that an insurance policy "may provide for the reduction in limits to the extent that damages have been (A) paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury, (B) paid or are payable under any workers' compensation law . . ." Regs. Conn. State Agencies §§ 38a-334-6(d)(1)(A) and (B).
The plaintiff has filed an objection to the remittitur motion. Therein, the plaintiff claims that the policy at issue "should be construed to provide conversion coverage which would prohibit the defendant from taking a $50,000 reduction from the coverage for the payment received from the tortfeasor." The plaintiff does not challenge the defendant's claim that it is entitled to a credit for the payment of workers' compensation benefits.
The sole issue is whether the insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff provided underinsured motorist conversion coverage. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the available coverage will not be reduced by the amount of the tortfeasor's payment. If the answer is in the negative, then the coverage limit will be reduced by that amount. The determination of this issue requires the court to construe the pertinent terms of the defendant's policy.
"[A]n insurance policy is a contract that is construed to effectuate the intent of the parties as expressed by their words and purposes . . . [U]nambiguous terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning . . . As with contracts generally, a provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one reading . . . The determination of whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a matter of law for the court to decide . . ."
"Ordinarily, if an ambiguity arises that cannot be resolved by examining the parties' intentions . . . the ambiguous language should be construed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the insured when he entered into the contract . . . Courts in such situations often apply the contra proferentem rule and interpret a policy against the insurer." (Internal quotations omitted; citations omitted.) Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 255 Conn. 295, 305-06, 765 A.2d 891 (2001).
It is undisputed under the circumstances of the present action that the policy contains underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000. The question is whether the plaintiff purchased the "add on benefit" of conversion coverage under the policy issued to him by the defendant.
An insurance company must offer, and an insured may purchase for an additional premium, underinsured motorist insurance coverage which "shall be in lieu of [standard] underinsurance motorist coverage." General Statutes § 38a-336a. Such coverage applies "to all new and renewal policies issued on or after January 1, 1994." General Statutes § 38a-336a(f). The statutory scheme concerning conversion coverage changes the definition of "underinsured motor vehicle" to mean "a motor vehicle with respect to which the sum of all payments received by or on behalf of the covered person from or on behalf of the tortfeasor are less than the fair, just and reasonable damages of the covered person." General Statutes § 38a-336a(e). In the event that conversion coverage is purchased, "then in no event shall the underinsurance motorist coverage be reduced on account of any payment by or on behalf of the tortfeasor or by any third party." General Statutes § 38a-336a(c).
The plaintiff asserts that the policy terms are ambiguous as to whether the plaintiff purchased underinsurance motorist conversion coverage. The crux of the defendant's argument is it is unclear from the declarations page as to whether the plaintiff purchased such additional coverage. There is no dispute that Part V of the policy contains terms applicable to standard underinsured motorist coverage and Part VI of the policy contains terms applicable to conversion coverage. There is also no dispute that if the declarations page indicates that the plaintiff has standard coverage, then Part V applies, and if the declarations page indicates that the plaintiff has conversion coverage, then Part VI applies.
The declarations page shows that the policy covers two motor vehicles. The stated coverages are the same for each vehicle, although the amounts of the premiums are different. The page shows that there is "[u]ninsured/[u]nderinsured motorist" coverage for each vehicle with limits of $100,000 each person and $300,000 each accident. Nowhere on the document is there any reference to conversion coverage.
The plaintiff makes a convoluted argument in support of his objection. Generally, the plaintiff claims that the declarations page should indicate "SS" for standard underinsured motorist coverage and "SC" for conversion coverage. The plaintiff bases his claim on the reference to those designations in the policy language concerning those coverages. The plaintiff claims that the absence of those designations on that page renders the policy ambiguous. The court disagrees.
The declarations page clearly shows that the plaintiff purchased and received standard underinsured motorist coverage. The page does not set forth any reference, by designation or otherwise, to conversion coverage. Moreover, that the designations "SS" and "SC" don't appear are meaningless in terms of the construction of the policy and its terms.
The plaintiff cites to the case Wilfert v. Allstate Insurance Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV-06-5001294 (Nadeau, J., June 15, 2007) in support of his claim that those designations have significance in construing the uninsured and underinsured motorist provisions of the policy. In that case, the plaintiff brought an underinsured motorist claim against the defendant. The defendant filed a summary judgment motion contending that the claim was precluded by the relevant statute of limitations. In considering the assertion, the court considered the policy provisions relating to underinsured motorist coverage. The court noted that "the absence of the phrase `Coverage SC' from the declarations page does not render the policy ambiguous when the rest of the designation `Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage Conversion' is clearly displayed. Plaintiffs' argument would be more plausible if the clause at issue stated clearly that `Coverage SC' must be written on the declarations page for the conversion coverage to apply."
In support of its remittitur motion, the defendant submitted a copy of the policy at issue in the Wilfert case. The declarations page clearly shows that the insured purchased and received conversion coverage in that matter. More particularly, the declarations page recites "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Conversion" coverage. That language is contrasted with the policy language in the present action that recites "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists." The obvious difference in the language is the absence of the word "Conversion" in the present action.
In view of the foregoing, the defendant's Motion for Remittitur (122.00) is granted.