Are PTSD damages recoverable in an underinsured motorist claim?
The case involves two Connecticut state troopers, who sustained injuries in an accident with a drunk driver.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part the appellate court’s judgment in a case involving the recovery of underinsured motorist benefits after an accident involving an intoxicated driver.
The plaintiffs, Connecticut state troopers, filed underinsured-motorist actions against Connecticut. They alleged that they sustained injuries from an accident with William Bowers, the intoxicated driver. They also alleged that their personal insurance and Bowers’ insurance were insufficient compensation, the opinion said.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the state had underinsured motorist coverage due to an agreement between the state and the police union, the state was self-insured, and the state had not given the underinsured motorist benefits to them for their injuries.
The plaintiffs alleged that they had physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The plaintiffs also argued that the appellate court improperly agreed with the trial court’s judgment that they were not able to recover underinsured motorist benefits for PTSD.
In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the appellate panel wrongly reversed the trial court’s determination that the state was not entitled to a reduction of the plaintiffs’ settlement awards under Connecticut’s Dram Shop Act, General Statutes §30-102.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion in the first issue, but for different reasons, and agreed with the plaintiffs on the second issue raised.
Considered a ‘bodily injury’?
Jeffrey L. Ment, managing partner of The Ment Law Group and counsel for the plaintiffs, said that he was happy with the second half of the Supreme Court’s decision, but thought the opinion avoided addressing whether damages for PTSD are recoverable in an underinsured motorist claim.
The trial and appellate court agreed that under General Statutes §38a-336(a)(1)(A), the damages that are covered must be “because of bodily injury,” the opinion said.
Ment said PTSD should be considered a “bodily injury,” especially because his clients all had “physical manifestations” related to PTSD, including sweating, urinary incontinence and trembling.
‘Left the door open’
But the trial court found that the plaintiffs’ PTSD claims were not due to physical injuries. It also did not find the expert witness, who said the plaintiffs suffered from PTSD, credible, the opinion said.
The appellate court found that the plaintiffs could not recover underinsured motorist benefits for PTSD.
And the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s ability to discredit the expert witness, but declined to confirm or deny the appellate court’s determination.
“They at least left the door open,” Ment said. “I suppose that’s better than a complete loss, because it leaves the chance to come back in a different case and make the same arguments, and maybe get a different outcome.”
Allowing a windfall?
David A. Haught, a partner at Cooney, Scully and Dowling and counsel for the defense, said the Supreme Court made the correct decision regarding the PTSD issue because the trial court found the expert was not credible, so the appellate court did not need to go further.
In regards to the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the Appellate Court’s determination — that the trial court should have reduced the plaintiff award by the amount received in settlement of their dram shop claims — Haught said this was incorrect.
The plaintiffs argued that the “payments are not deductible, either as a consequence of the common-law rule against double recovery” or through underinsured motorist benefits.
“The way the state drafted … underinsured motorist coverage was not to pay claimants who are state employees twice for the same damages,” Haught said. “I think all of tort law should be grounded in the principle that the plaintiff should not be receiving a windfall, and the court is allowing, in this case, a windfall.”
Related: