From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Nichols

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Sep 30, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 7915 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Opinion

No. CV91 0283949 S

September 30, 1991.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE (No. 101)


The defendant has plead by way of special defense that the plaintiff has received collateral source payments, as defined in Connecticut General Statutes 52-225b, which must be deducted from any verdict prior to the entry of any judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has filed a motion to strike this special defense as being premature and inappropriate.

Connecticut General Statutes 52-225a, b and c states in part that the court is required to reduce the verdict by the total of all amounts paid to the plaintiff from collateral sources. The collateral source reduction is made after a post verdict hearing as required by statute.

Since it is not necessary to allege collateral sources in order to have the hearing, the special defense is superfluous.

The motion to strike is granted.

WILLIAM J. McGRATH, JUDGE.


Summaries of

Davis v. Nichols

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Sep 30, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 7915 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)
Case details for

Davis v. Nichols

Case Details

Full title:HARVEY DAVIS v. STEPHEN NICHOLS

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport

Date published: Sep 30, 1991

Citations

1991 Ct. Sup. 7915 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Citing Cases

Vezina v. Warner-Lambert Co.

Id. "Since defendant already has a clear right to a post-verdict reduction for collateral source payments to…

Vezina v. Warner-Lambert Co.

Id. "Since defendant already has a clear right to a post-verdict reduction for collateral source payments to…