Skip to main content

Menard v. State

Citations

  • 346 Conn. 506

Syllabus

The plaintiffs M and C, state police officers who suffered injuries when a motor vehicle driven by a nonparty tortfeasor struck a police cruiser, sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits in connection with certain insurance coverage provided by the self-insured defendant, the state of Connecticut. The plaintiffs' cases were consolidated for a trial to the court, which found for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability but awarded only a fraction of the damages they had sought. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for their alleged post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the ground that such damages are not available under the statute (§ 38a-336 (a) (1) (A)) 346 Conn. 506 APRIL, 2023 507 Menard v. State governing uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and prescrib- ing coverage for damages ''because of bodily injury,'' insofar as the plaintiffs' alleged PTSD was not a result of physical injuries. The trial court also did not credit the expert opinion and testimony of H, the plaintiffs' therapist, that the plaintiffs had suffered from PTSD. Subse- quently, the court held a collateral source hearing, after which it con- cluded that certain workers' compensation benefits that the plaintiffs had received were deductible from the plaintiffs' damages but that cer- tain amounts the plaintiffs had received from a pretrial settlement under the Dram Shop Act (§ 30-102) were not. Accordingly, the court adjusted the plaintiffs' damages and rendered judgments for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed and the defendant filed a cross appeal. On appeal, the Appellate Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the trial court had misconstrued § 38a-336 (a) (1) (A) as limiting underinsured motorist coverage to damages for physical injury and agreed with the defendant that the trial court improperly had failed to reduce the plaintiffs' damages by the amounts of their dram shop recoveries. In light of the Appellate Court's holdings a

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.