Opinion
No. CV-07-5010045S
August 19, 2008
RULING ON MOTION FOR BIFURCATION (#127)
Therese Fowler (Fowler) has brought an action against her insurance carrier Connecticut Life Casualty Insurance Company (Connecticut Life) in which she seeks underinsured motorist benefits in the first count and claims that the carrier acted in bad faith in the second and third counts. Connecticut Life has moved to bifurcate the bad faith claims from the claim for underinsured motorist benefits arguing that if Fowler does not recover more than her available coverage the bad faith claims would become moot. Fowler objects to trial bifurcation, but does not dispute that issue bifurcation may be appropriate.
Bifurcation is within the court's discretion. Both General Statutes § 52-97 and Practice Book § 10-21 provide that when several causes of action are joined in a single complaint "the court may order a separate trial of any such cause of action" when it appears "that they cannot all be heard conveniently together." In addition to convenience, the avoidance of prejudice and judicial efficiency have been cited as reasons in favor of bifurcation. Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 448-49, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).
Bifurcation is appropriate when the litigation of one issue could obviate the need to litigate other issues. Id.; Reichold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 243 Conn. 401, 423, 703 A.2d 1132 (1997). In this case, that is certainly true. The complaint alleges, and Connecticut Life concedes, that the underinsured motorist coverage available to Fowler is $200,000.00. She has already collected $20,000.00 from the tortfeasor and it was represented that her medical bills of approximately $15,000.00 have also been paid. Her counsel agreed that Fowler would be hard-pressed to prove bad faith if she received a jury award of $220,000.00 or less and if she were awarded a larger sum that might create an incentive for a settlement to be negotiated before the trial of the bad faith claims. Furthermore, bifurcation of the underinsured motorist benefits claim from the bad faith claims would minimize the potential prejudice to Connecticut Life.
On the other hand, as Fowler has pointed out, evidence relevant to the claim for underinsured motorist benefits is also relevant to the bad faith claims because "the decision as to whether the defendant's failure to settle the claims was reasonable [necessitates] inquiry into the nature of the accident, the terms and conditions of the policy . . . and the medical evidence regarding the claimed disability." Powell v. Infinity Insurance Co., 282 Conn. 594, 609, 922 A.2d 1073 (2007). In this regard, however, Connecticut Life posits that it may have to call plaintiff's counsel as a witness with respect to settlement negotiations that were undertaken with the carrier. Issue bifurcation may solve any dilemma that this may create. Id., 282 Conn. 594, n. 6.
Accordingly, the court orders the bifurcation of the trial of the first count of the complaint from the trial of the second and third counts. No evidence or arguments regarding settlement negotiations or the investigation of the claim may be advanced during the trial of the first count. In the discretion of the trial judge, a reasonable continuance may be granted between the conclusion of the trial of the underinsured motorist benefits claim and the bad faith claims; however, all claims shall be heard by the same jury.
This order contemplates that discovery will proceed on all claims. To the extent that Connecticut Life has specific objections to the plaintiff's non-standard discovery request relating to the bad faith claims, it must file a separate motion directed to that discovery request.