Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently issued a decision addressing the proof necessary to establish underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage for certain damages claims. In <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Menard-v.-State.pdf">Menard v. State</a></em>, the Court evaluated whether plaintiffs were entitled to receive UIM benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from an auto accident. Plaintiffs in that case were state troopers who were injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an intoxicated driver and filed actions seeking UIM benefits from the State of Connecticut.

The trial court issued judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, except as to their claims for PTSD damages. In doing so, the trial court found that the diagnosis and expert testimony of their expert was not credible and that the covered damages must be caused by “bodily injury”.  Plaintiffs had argued that PTSD should be considered a “bodily injury” where plaintiffs have “physical manifestations” of PTSD.  The trial court found that the plaintiffs’ PTSD claims were not due to physical injuries. The Appellate Court agreed and determined that the plaintiffs could not recover UIM benefits for PTSD.

The Supreme Court agreed with this ruling but based its decision on different grounds. The Court instead found that plaintiffs’ expert witness was not credible and rejected the expert’s opinion that plaintiffs had PTSD. Thus, plaintiffs were not eligible to recover damages for PTSD, even if such coverage was afforded for such an injury under the UIM statute and the State of Connecticut’s UIM policy. The Court found that the trial court did not act arbitrarily in rejecting the expert opinion regarding PTSD and that this was a proper basis for determining UIM benefit eligibility.

The Court also reversed the Appellate Court’s holding that the trial court should have reduced the award by the sums plaintiffs received to settle their Dram Shop claims. The Court recognized that the legislature abrogated the common-law rule regarding pretrial settlement payments when it adopted General Statute §52-216a. A trial court may reduce damages to account for pretrial settlement payments when the award would otherwise be excessive as a matter of law in the absence of such a reduction. The Court found that plaintiffs’ damages award was not excessive and that the Dram Shop settlement payments were not a “collateral source” to warrant a reduction.
<em>
</em>The <em>Menard</em> case highlights the importance of expert testimony in establishing causation and damages in UIM cases in Connecticut. The Court found that plaintiffs there failed to establish certain injuries even though they were potentially covered under the policy and applicable statute. Defendants should be prepared to challenge such claims where the proof is insufficient.

Thank you to Arianna Arca for her contribution to this post. Please contact <a href="agibbs@wcmlaw.com">Andrew Gibbs</a> with any questions.