Opinion
No. CV 01 0811755 S
November 24, 2004
RULINGS ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
This is an underinsured motorist case which was tried in August 2004. On August 16, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $7,477.65 in economic damages and $35,458.00 in noneconomic damages. Various post-trial motions were filed by both sides, and argument took place on September 29, 2004.
I. Motions for Mistrial and for New Trial
The plaintiff has filed motions for mistrial and a motion for a new trial because of an error which was made in submitting exhibits to the jury. As noted above, this is an underinsured motorist case. Prior to trial, the plaintiff marked as exhibits for identification several items pertaining to the tortfeasor's insurance status, including a copy of the check in the amount of $25,000 from the tortfeasor's liability insurer to the plaintiff, which check exhausted the policy. Because of various pretrial rulings and admissions by the defendant as to coverage, the case was submitted to the jury solely as a hearing in damages in a tort case, and no insurance evidence was necessary. Some underlying insurance information, including the copy of the check (Exhibit 39 for Identification), was inadvertently included in the group of exhibits which were taken into the jury room. The clerk and the lawyers apparently reviewed the materials first.
The matter came to the court's attention when the foreperson of the jury wrote the question, "Will the court deduct the $25,000 settlement from State Farm from any settlement we may determine?" (Court Exhibit 1). After conferring with counsel, the court gave an instruction to the effect that the jurors were to disregard any insurance information. If there were any duplicate payments, the court would make appropriate adjustments after the jury reached its verdict. In essence, the jurors were simply to follow the prior instructions. Exhibits for identification were retrieved from the jury room. No exceptions were taken at the time to the response to the question. The answer was apparently agreed upon. No motion for mistrial, or any other motion, was made.
On August 23, 2004, the plaintiff filed her motion for mistrial and for a new trial. I am not persuaded that any injustice was done, and the motions are denied. The mistake, while regrettable, was accidental and was addressed reasonably at the time it arose. No specific prejudice has been shown. I do not see how the accident can fatally and irretrievably infect a verdict because, among many other considerations, underinsured motorist cases can in some instances include as necessary evidence underlying insurance information, if the contractual prerequisites are contested. I believe that a rational jury is capable of reaching a sound result with the understanding that any duplicate payment will be considered at a later time by the trial court. The motions are denied.
II. The Defendant's Motion to Reduce the Amount of the Verdict by the Amount of the Payment by the Tortfeasor's Insurer
The defendant has moved the court to reduce the verdict by $25,000, the amount of the tortfeasor's insurer's payment, and the plaintiff has objected to the motion. The thrust of the plaintiff's argument is that the reduction was not raised by special defense, nor was evidence produced at trial regarding the amounts of the policy and of the payment.
The short answers are that payment of $25,000, thus exhausting the policy, was alleged in the complaint (¶ 8) and admitted in the amended answer. The plaintiff moved in limine to prohibit the introduction of any insurance information, which motion was granted by agreement because the parties agreed that the case would be presented to the jury strictly as a tort case for personal injuries. It was clearly understood by all that $25,000 would be subtracted from the amount of the verdict. The defendant's motion is granted and the objection overruled.
III. The Defendant's Motion to Reduce the Verdict by the Amount of the Economic Damages
Claiming a collateral source deduction, the defendant has moved to reduce the verdict by the amount of the economic damages awarded by the jury. The plaintiff has objected to the claimed setoff from the verdict because interrogatories were not submitted to the jury pursuant to the dictates of Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336 (2004).
The plaintiff introduced into evidence an exhibit which summarized medical bills. The total claimed to have been caused by the accident was $7,477.65. The jury's verdict included the precise amount of $7,477.65 as economic damages. The only economic damages claimed were medical bills. Prior to the instructions to the jury, I specifically asked whether the defendant wished to have interrogatories submitted pursuant to Jones, and the answer was negative. Jones quite clearly holds that a defendant who seeks a collateral source reduction must submit interrogatories to the jury "concerning the specific items of damages included within the verdict." Id. at 350. Such interrogatories are required if the defendant is to fulfill the defendant's burden to prove that the items for which he claims a reduction were actually included in the verdict; that is, it was the intent of the legislature to allow a reduction only for items previously paid by eligible collateral sources which were actually included in the verdict by the finder of fact. Id., 349-50.
The issue presented is whether collateral source reductions are allowed if interrogatories have not been submitted to the jury, but it nonetheless is clear what items have been included in the jury's compilation of economic damages. In the narrow circumstances of this case, I find that the jury's figure of economic damages specifically includes all of the bills included in the plaintiff's summary of medical bills and nothing in addition. Given the exact nature of the numbers, any other interpretation, though perhaps theoretically possible, would be simply bizarre.
As noted in Pikulski v. Waterbury Hospital Health Center, 269 Conn. 1, 8 (2004), the gravamen of the requirement of jury interrogatories is to ensure that collateral source reductions apply only to items of economic damage that the jury has included in its award: "[a]s we stated in Jones, `only payments specifically corresponding with items of damages included in the jury's verdict [are] to be deducted as collateral sources from the economic damages award'; id., 348; not the total amount paid by collateral sources for the medical bills." The use of interrogatories thus prevents overdeductions in any situation which is less than crystal clear. A useful example is Guay v. Darden, 37 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 22, p. 837 (Shapiro, J.) (2004), in which Judge Shapiro did not allow collateral source reduction where it was not absolutely clear what amount of medical bills, and which medical bills, the jury included in its award of economic damages. Judge Shapiro carefully analyzed whether the award was clear in that regard; it is significant that he did not refuse to deduct for collateral source payments on the ground that interrogatories had not been submitted to the jury.
I find, then, that all of the medical bills submitted into evidence were elegible to be reduced by collateral source payments. This does not, however, end the inquiry, because I have not received evidence as to the precise amounts of collateral source payments or of offsets resulting from premium payments. If the parties request are unable to agree as to amounts, they should notify the civil caseflow office for a hearing date.
III. Conclusion
Motion 121 is granted, except as to precise amounts of collateral source deduction. Motion 122 is denied. Objections 123 and 124 are overruled. Motion 125 is denied. Objections 126 and 127 are sustained.
Beach, J.