Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that General Statutes § 52-225a permits reduction of an economic damages award only by collateral source payments corresponding to specific damages included in the fact finder’s verdict. The court further held that the party seeking a collateral source reduction bears the burden of requesting jury interrogatories identifying the damages included in the award. Because the jury did not delineate the plaintiff’s economic damages, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on the full verdict.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether General Statutes § 52-225a requires reduction of an economic damages award by all collateral source payments received for the plaintiff's benefit or only by collateral source payments corresponding to specific items of damages included in the jury's verdict.
- Which party bears the burden of establishing that the verdict includes damages corresponding to collateral source payments, and what procedure must be used to identify those damages.
Holdings
- Section 52-225a permits deduction only of collateral source payments that specifically correspond to items of economic damages included in the jury's verdict; it does not authorize a wholesale reduction by all collateral source benefits received by the plaintiff regardless of the damages actually awarded.
- The defendant seeking a collateral source reduction bears the burden of proving that the verdict includes items of damages for which the plaintiff received collateral source benefits and must submit jury interrogatories concerning the specific items of economic damages included in the verdict.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we conclude that § 52-225a, when viewed in the context of the purposes of tort reform, must be construed to allow only payments specifically corresponding with items of damages included in the jury’s verdict to be deducted as collateral sources from the economic damages award.” (348)
“We conclude that the defendant, as the party seeking to reduce the amount of economic damages awarded by the fact finder, bears the burden of proving that the verdict includes items of damages for which the plaintiff has received a collateral source benefit.” (350)
“Specifically, the defendant who is seeking a collateral source reduction must, at the conclusion of the evidence, submit interrogatories to the jury concerning the specific items of damages included within the verdict.” (350)
Factual background
Jones was injured in an automobile collision allegedly caused by Kramer's negligence. He claimed more than $30,000 in medical expenses and $10,000 in lost wages, while the jury awarded $15,000 in economic damages and $35,000 in noneconomic damages without specifying the amounts awarded for particular economic-loss categories. Jones's insurer paid $13,031 of his medical bills, with the parties stipulating that the net collateral source amount after insurance premiums was $12,000; Jones also had $16,008.61 in unreimbursed medical expenses.
Procedural history
Jones sued the executor of Alex C. Kramer's estate for personal injuries arising from an automobile collision. The jury awarded Jones $15,000 in economic damages and $35,000 in noneconomic damages. After a collateral source hearing, the trial court reduced the $50,000 verdict by $12,000 and entered judgment for $42,361.21, including costs. The Appellate Court affirmed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and reversed.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Appellate Court's judgment and direct it to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000 in accordance with the jury's verdict.