Opinion
No. CV-03-0100500-S
September 22, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON POST-VERDICT MOTIONS
The defendant has moved for judgment after verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff has already recovered an amount more than the verdict. The plaintiff has moved for judgment on the Second Count of the Complaint which seeks to recover $1,589 for a chiropractic bill under the medical payments portion of the plaintiff's insurance policy with the defendant.
The Complaint is in two counts. The First Count seeks recovery under the underinsured portion of the plaintiff's policy with the defendant and the Second Count seeks the aforementioned amount under the medical payments portion of that policy. Although the Complaint is in two counts, the parties both agreed to submit a general verdict to the jury. On April 14, 2004 the jury rendered a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff in which it awarded her $16,800 for economic damages and $2,200 for non-economic damages for a total verdict of $19,000.
The defendant moves for judgment in favor of the defendant based upon Connecticut General Statutes § 10-79, which provides in relevant part: "An insurer should raise issues of monetary policy limits, or credits for payments by or on behalf of third party tortfeasors, by special defense." The defendant asserts that it is entitled to a reduction in the jury verdict by that amount which has already been paid to the plaintiff on behalf of the tortfeasor. The plaintiff has already received $20,000 from the tortfeasor. The defendant argues that a judgment in favor of the defendant should be entered because the jury awarded an amount less than the amount already paid by the tortfeasor.
The plaintiff has objected to the defendant's motion on two grounds. First, the plaintiff asserts that the court should not reduce the portion of the plaintiff's verdict for past and future economic damages that is attributable to the plaintiff's chiropractic bill. Second, the plaintiff argues that the court has no authority to change a plaintiff's verdict into a defendant's verdict.
In Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 49 Conn.App. 306, 714 A.2d 686 (1998), the plaintiff sought to obtain underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to the plaintiff's automobile liability insurance policy. Id., 307. The plaintiff had already received $100,000 from the tortfeasor. Id. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $90,064.77. Id., 308. "The court accepted the verdict and the defendant moved for a judgment based on the pleadings and the amount of the jury's verdict." Id. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits because he had already received compensation in excess of the value of his damages. Id. The Appellate Court held that the trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant because if the trial court had rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of the jury verdict, "the result would have been an impermissible double recovery by the plaintiff in violation of law and public policy." Id., 312. In reaching its conclusion, the Appellate Court reasoned that "[b]ecause the jury returned a verdict of less than the plaintiff's $100,000 recovery, the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden [of proof] . . . and, therefore, was not entitled to damages in excess of the $100,000 recovery." Id.
Similarly, in Hunt v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 534, 792 A.2d 132 (2002), the Court held that a trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant where a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an amount that was less than the amount of compensation that the plaintiff already had received.
The plaintiff's assertion that the court cannot change a plaintiff's verdict into a defendant's verdict is misplaced. The defendant is not seeking to change the plaintiff's verdict into a defendant's verdict, but rather is seeking to have judgment entered in favor of the defendant because the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $19,000 and the plaintiff has already received $20,000 from the tortfeasor.
The plaintiff has moved for judgment in her favor on Count Two of the Complaint. In support of her motion, the plaintiff asserts the following. On April 14, 2003, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $16,800 in past and future economic damages and $2,200 in past and future non-economic damages. The jury verdict for $16,800 in past and future economic damages included the plaintiff's medical bills for chiropractic treatment in the amount of $1,589. While the defendant is entitled to a reduction in damages for liability arising under the underinsured motorist coverage provision of the insurance policy issued to the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant is not entitled to a reduction in damages for liability arising under the medical payments coverage provision because the medical payments coverage provision does not explicitly provide for a reduction of medical payments coverage by third-party tortfeasor payments.
Neither party submitted interrogatories to the jury, as suggested in Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336, 345, 838 A.2d 170 (2004). Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain whether the jury awarded the amount of $1,589 at all, or whether the jury awarded that amount on Count One and/or Count Two. Just as the defendant seeking a collateral source reduction in Jones had the burden of proving that the amounts awarded by the jury corresponded with the collateral source payments, see Jones, supra, at pp. 349-50, the plaintiff here seeking to establish that an amount is not part of a collateral source reduction should bear the burden of proving that that amount was awarded on the Second Count. The plaintiff has not met that burden.
Moreover, the plaintiff has already recovered $20,000, the total jury verdict was $19,000 and the plaintiff has admitted that the $19,000 included the $1,589 chiropractic bill. Awarding the plaintiff judgment on the Second Count would result in a double recovery for the plaintiff. Therefore, the Motion for Judgment on the Second Count is denied. Judgment may enter on both counts in favor of the defendant due to the plaintiff's previous recovery of $20,000 from the tortfeasor.
By the court,
Aurigemma, J.