skip to Main Content

PERSONAL INJURY: Connecticut Supreme Court holds that collateral source reduction is not allowed where there is any right of subrogation by the health insurer

PERSONAL INJURY:  Connecticut Supreme Court Holds That Collateral Source Reduction Is Not Allowed Where There Is Any Right Of Subrogation By The Health Insurer

Connecticut General Statutes §52-225a permits a collateral source reduction except “that there shall be no reduction for . . . a collateral source for which a right of subrogation exists.”

In the case before the court, the plaintiff had been injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The jury awarded $84,283.00 in economic damages and $40,000.00 in noneconomic damages, for a total of $124,283.00.  Following trial, the defendants requested a collateral source reduction.

The Superior Court calculated the collateral source reduction by subtracting the cost to secure the collateral source benefits ($58,042.43) from the payments made to the plaintiff by the health insurer ($82,342.18).  This amounted to a collateral source reduction of $24,299.75.  The court therefore reduced the total verdict from $124,283.67 to $99,983.92, plus costs.  The health insurance plan at issue was admittedly an ERISA plan with a right of subrogation.  Prior to the judgment the ERISA insurer had agreed to accept $6,940.19 in full satisfaction of the right of subrogation in the event of a settlement for $120,000.00.

The court holds that since there was a right of subrogation under the plain and unambiguous language of §52-225a, there was no basis for any collateral source reduction of the jury verdict.

Marciano v. Jimenez, SC 19547 (12/22/16)

Interested in more information?
Contact us now for experienced and professional legal counsel.

This is Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.