Insurance Coverage: Court holds that plaintiff is entitled to settle her claim with the known tortfeasor and, at the same time, pursue a claim against her insurer who stands in the shoes of the unidentified tortfeasor

Plaintiff sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under two policies issued by the defendant, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in a claim involving a motor vehicle accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff received a settlement from the defendant tortfeasor that far exceeded the limits of the insurance policy coverage. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff and the defendant tortfeasor’s motor vehicle. The defendant tortfeasor is alleged to have left his parked vehicle unlocked with the keys inside on April 7, 2022. At some point that night, the defendant tortfeasor’s vehicle was taken by an unidentified person. The plaintiff was a passenger in a different vehicle when said vehicle was struck by the vehicle driven by the unidentified person.

The unidentified person fled on foot. The plaintiff settled her claim against the defendant tortfeasor for $225,000, leaving her  claims for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under the two policies with Allstate. Allstate  moved for summary judgment on both claims on the grounds that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff’s recovery of $225,000 from the defendant tortfeasor far exceeds the maximum available under the plaintiff’s policy, thus reducing the available limits to zero.  Plaintiff opposed this motion, contending that, in this case involving a multi-tortfeasor motor vehicle collision and an unidentified tortfeasor, a plaintiff may proceed against an insurer as a surrogate for the unidentified driver even if the plaintiff settled with the identified tortfeasor. The Superior Court agreed with the plaintiff.

The court highlighted General Statutes § 38a-226 which requires each automobile liability insurance policy to provide insurance for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and underinsured motor vehicles. This reflects the public policy of the State of Connecticut to afford personal injury claimants access to insurance protection for damages that would have been recoverable if the uninsured motorist had maintained an adequate policy of liability insurance. However, § 38a-226(b) provides a cap for such coverage not to exceed the limits of the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage. This limitation serves to avoid the anomaly of a greater recovery under those policy provisions than would have been available from a tortfeasor carrying liability insurance equal to the coverage of the insured.

Allstate cited a single decision in support of its argument against plaintiff’s recovery which the court ultimately found to be inapposite. In Guarino v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co, 315 Conn. 249 (2015), the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff settled claims on behalf of the decedent’s estate with all identified tortfeasors before seeking recovery for UM/UIM coverage. The Supreme Court contrasted this factual scenario with another case in which the plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by an identified motorist and an unidentified motorist who fled the scene. In Garcia v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 72 Conn. App. 588 (2002), the plaintiff settled with the known tortfeasor in an amount that exceeded the uninsured motorist coverage, and then brought an action against the UM/UIM insurer who was “standing in the shoes of the unidentified tortfeasor, whom the plaintiff had not settled with in any amount.” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court construed Garcia as simply treating the uninsured motorist carrier as if it were the tortfeasor and applying the rules of apportionment that apply in the multi-tortfeasor context. The Superior Court in this case applies the same rational as the Supreme Court and holds that because the plaintiff settled her claims with the known tortfeasor, the plaintiff may pursue her claim against Allstate as the insurer standing in the shoes of the unidentified tortfeasor. Allstate’s motion for summary judgment is therefore denied. Earlington v. Ortiz, No. HHD-CV22-6162209-S, 2024 WL 2830298 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 30, 2024)