Kuntz v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
If a policyholder is injured in a motor-vehicle accident and requests underinsured-motorist benefits, an insurance company may subtract the amount the policyholder receives as a result of workers' compensation. In August 2008, the plaintiff, Thomas Kuntz, allegedly was injured in a motor-vehicle accident in North Haven. Kuntz, who worked for the state Department of Transportation, applied for and received workers' compensation in the amount of $150,000, as a result of the motor-vehicle accident. The tortfeasor's insurance paid $20,000. Kuntz sued the defendant, his own insurance company, and requested underinsured-motorist benefits. Kuntz's policy provided underinsured-motorist benefits of up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The court found that an endorsement to Kuntz's insurance policy provided, "The limit [of underinsured motorist coverage] shall be reduced by all sums: . . . Paid or payable because of the bodily injury under any workers' compensation law." A box for conversion coverage was not checked. The Superior Court distinguished the Connecticut Appellate Court's 2012 decision in Fiallo v. Allstate Insurance Co., because the policy in Fiallo was ambiguous. In contrast to Fiallo, the plaintiff's policy was not ambiguous. "The declarations page is consistent with the endorsement," wrote the court, "and does not allow for conversion coverage." The court granted judgment to the defendant insurance company.VIEW FULL CASE