Guarino v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

315 Conn. 249

105 A.3d 878

Michelle GUARINO, Administratrix (Estate of Georgette Dufresne)

v.ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 19168.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 19, 2014.

Decided Jan. 6, 2015.

Gerald S. Sack, with whom, on the brief, was Jonathan A. Cantor, West Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Joshua O. Balter, New Haven, for the appellee (defendant).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

The plaintiff, Michelle Guarino, administratrix of the estate of Georgette Dufresne, brought this action against the defendant, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, to recover underinsured motorist benefits after she settled other actions against two motorists whose negligence she alleged had caused Dufresne's death. The issue before this court is whether, under such circumstances, it is necessary for a trier of fact to apportion fault and damages before coverage may be reduced under Dufresne's underinsured motorist policy for amounts paid by or on behalf of the underinsured motorist, or “anyone else responsible.”

The trial court rejected that proposition and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that Dufresne had no underinsured motorist coverage available because the plaintiff's recovery of settlement payments in an aggregate sum in excess of the policy's underinsured motorist coverage reduced her coverage to zero. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Guarino v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 142 Conn.App. 603, 610–13, 67 A.3d 300 (2013). In her certified appeal to this court, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court improperly failed to apply binding precedent under which a fact finder must apportion fault and damages before an insurer's liability may be reduced by settlement payments. We conclude that an underinsured motorist carrier is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when all alleged tortfeasors settle the insured's claims against them for the injuries giving rise to the underinsured motorist claim in an aggregate sum in excess of the policy limits. We further conclude that the apportionment cases on which the plaintiff relies are inapposite in such circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.

The issue before us arises in the context of the following undisputed facts. Dufresne died as a result of injuries sustained when her automobile was struck by another vehicle as she proceeded through an intersection without stopping at a stop sign posted there. The plaintiff thereafter filed actions, sounding in negligence, against Anton Paving, LLC (Anton), and Lombardi Tire and Auto Repair, LLC (Lombardi), the owners of two vehicles that she claimed had been parked at the side of the road in a manner that obstructed Dufresne's view of the stop sign.

At the time of the collision, Dufresne carried automobile insurance issued by the defendant that included coverage for bodily injuries caused by underinsured motorists. Dufresne's underinsured motorist coverage limit was $100,000 per person per accident. The policy contained the following language: “The limits of this coverage will be reduced by ... all amounts paid by or on behalf of the owner or operator of the uninsured auto or underinsured auto or anyone else responsible.”

The plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant after she settled the claim against Anton in return for a payment of $20,000. The plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under Dufresne's policy because Anton's negligence had caused Dufresne's death and because she had exhausted Anton's policy for an amount less than her policy coverage. Pursuant to the defendant's request, the pending action against Lombardi was consolidated with the plaintiff's action against the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff settled the claims against Lombardi in return for a payment of $225,000. As part of that settlement, she executed a release similar to that signed as part of her settlement with Anton. Neither release included a stipulation of fault; in fact, both releases disclaimed liability.

Following Lombardi's settlement, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits because she had received payments from Anton and Lombardi in an amount that exceeded Dufresne's $100,000 policy limit. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that there would have to be a finding of fault and an apportionment of damages before there could be any reduction in coverage for Lombardi's payment. The court agreed with the defendant, granted its motion and rendered judgment in its favor.

The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment. Guarino v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 142 Conn.App. at 604, 67 A.3d 300. The Appellate Court first determined that the policy provision setting forth the coverage limitation conformed in all material respects to insurance regulations governing that matter. Id., at 608–10, 67 A.3d 300. It then determined that this court's decision in Buell v. American Universal Ins. Co., 224 Conn. 766, 621 A.2d 262 (1993), supported the trial court's conclusion that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment under the undisputed facts of the case. Guarino v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., supra, at 610–13, 67 A.3d 300.

In her certified appeal to this court, the plaintiff contends that the trial court and the Appellate Court improperly failed to follow Garcia v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 72 Conn.App. 588, 805 A.2d 779 (2002), which she characterizes as applying the law set forth in Collins v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 257 Conn. 718, 778 A.2d 899 (2001). She contends that Garcia held that, in a multitortfeasor context, a set off cannot be had for money recovered from a settling tortfeasor until a trier of fact apportions fault and damages. The plaintiff characterizes Garcia as factually and legally indistinguishable from the present case and as implicitly recognizing that Buell was overruled by Collins. Applying Garcia to her case, the plaintiff contends that, although a reduction of damages for the $20,000 settlement with Anton as the underinsured motorist would be proper, it is not proper or possible to determine whether and to what extent Lombardi's settlement may reduce coverage unless a trier finds that he is “responsible” for Dufresne's injuries and apportions damages for Lombardi's proportionate responsibility.¹ We conclude that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment under settled legal principles applied in this court's decisions. We further conclude that there is no tension between those cases and the apportionment cases on which the plaintiff relies.

We first are guided by the underinsured motorist statutory and regulatory scheme. Under that scheme, “[a]n insurance company shall be obligated to make payment to its insured up to the limits of the policy's uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage after the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements ....” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 38a–336 (b). “The limit of the insurer's liability may not be less than the applicable limits for bodily injury liability specified in subsection (a) of section 14–112 of the general statutes [currently $20,000], except that the policy may provide for the reduction of limits to the extent that damages have been (A) paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury ...” (Emphasis added.) Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 38a–334–6 (d)(1)(A) ; see, e.g., Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 49 Conn.App. 306, 312, 714 A.2d 686 (1998) (concluding that claimant was not entitled to recover under policy when trier of fact awarded damages in amount less than settlement). It is undisputed that Dufresne's underinsured motorist policy conforms to these requirements because it reduces the $100,000 limit of coverage for each person in each accident by “all amounts paid by or on behalf of the owner or operator of the ... underinsured auto or anyone else responsible.”

It has often been stated that “[t]he public policy established by the [under]insured motorist statute is that every insured is entitled to recover for the damages he or she would have been able to recover if the [under]insured motorist had maintained [an adequate] policy of liability insurance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Haynes v. Yale–New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 27, 699 A.2d 964 (1997) ; accord Gormbard v. Zurich Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 808, 819, 904 A.2d 198 (2006) ; Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245, 249, 449 A.2d 157 (1982). However, “[t]he statute does not require that [under]insured motorist coverage be made available when the insured has been otherwise protected.... Nor does the statute provide that the [under]insured motorist coverage shall stand as an independent source of recovery for the insured, or that the coverage limits shall not be reduced under appropriate circumstances. The statute merely requires that a certain minimum level of protection be provided for those insured under automobile liability insurance policies....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Orkney v. Hanover Ins. Co., 248 Conn. 195, 205, 727 A.2d 700 (1999).

The aforementioned parameters and policies are the same irrespective of whether there is a single tortfeasor or multiple tortfeasors. In either case, the claimant is required to exhaust the policies of only one tortfeasor in order to recover underinsured benefits. General Accident Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 221 Conn. 206, 207, 603 A.2d 385 (1992). This liberal rule, however, does not supersede the insurer's right under the regulation to limit coverage by any payments received by the claimant in settlement...