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)