*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
KRISTINE S. ANTHIS v. ROBERT D. WINDOM

(AC 42183)

Bright, Moll and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of

the defendants’ negligence and recklessness, arising out of an incident

in which the defendant’s motor vehicle struck the front of the plaintiff’s

neighboring home. Prior to trial, the court denied the defendant’s motion

in limine seeking to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding her home repair costs, which he asserted were paid for by the

plaintiff’s homeowners insurer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of

the plaintiff, and the court thereafter denied the defendant’s motion

for remittitur and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the

defendant appealed to this court. Subsequently, the court denied the

defendant’s motion to open the judgment, in which he argued that

a payment made by his automobile liability insurer to the plaintiff’s

homeowners insurer constituted a payment by him, such that requiring

him to pay the economic damages awarded by the jury would result in

a double payment and that the plaintiff’s insurer was equitably subrogated to the plaintiff’s rights to seek recovery from the defendant. Held:

1. The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion in limine; although

there was no dispute that the plaintiff’s insurer paid the plaintiff on an

insurance claim submitted by her in relation to the incident, the court

observed that there may have been a discrepancy between the amount

the plaintiff paid for the repairs and the amount she was reimbursed

by her insurer, and the court addressed the defendant’s double recovery

claim when it adjudicated his motion for remittitur, as to which the

parties had created an evidentiary record.

2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly

denied his motions for remittitur and to open the judgment, because

the court’s denial of these motions resulted in a double recovery by the

plaintiff, and a double payment by the defendant with respect to property

damage expenses the plaintiff had incurred: the court properly declined

to consider the defendant’s double payment and equitable subrogation

claims in deciding his motion for remittitur, as this court’s review of

the defendant’s pleadings and prejudgment motions revealed no mention

of the issues of double payment and equitable subrogation, the defendant

did not assert payment as a special defense or plead a right of setoff,

and, although the defendant asserted in his motion for remittitur that

he was seeking to prevent a double recovery, the defendant did not

refer to his automobile liability insurer or present his claims of double

payment and equitable subrogation therein; rather, the record revealed

that the defendant raised his double payment claim for the first time

during argument on his motion for collateral source reduction, which

immediately preceded argument on his motion for remittitur, the defendant’s trial counsel did not cite any legal authority in presenting that

particular argument, counsel made no perceivable reference to his

related equitable subrogation claim during argument on his postverdict

motions, and the defendant failed to raise his equitable subrogation

claim to the court in any manner during the prejudgment proceedings;

moreover, the court did not err by declining to consider the defendant’s

double payment and equitable subrogation claims in deciding the defendant’s motion to open, when he failed to raise them, either adequately

or at all, to the court prior to it rendering judgment in the plaintiff’s

favor; furthermore, even if this court were to agree with the defendant

that he properly raised his double payment and equitable subrogation

claims, the defendant could not prevail on the merits because, even

though the defendant claimed that his automobile liability insurer reimbursed the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer for the property damage

expenses incurred by the plaintiff that constituted the majority of the

economic damages awarded by the jury, the evidence in the record

demonstrated only that the defendant’s insurer made a payment to the

plaintiff’s insurer in relation to the plaintiff’s insurance claim, it did not
include a dollar for dollar breakdown of the payment, which did not

match the sum remitted by the plaintiff’s insurer to the plaintiff, and,

therefore, it was unknown what portion, if any, of the defendant’s insurer’s payment was intended to recompense the plaintiff’s insurer for

the property damage expenses incurred by the plaintiff, and without

evidence detailing the precise nature of the payment by the defendant’s

insurer, the defendant’s double payment and equitable subrogation

claims failed.

Argued November 18, 2019—officially released May 26, 2020

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defendant’s alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought

to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New

Haven, where the court, Pierson, J., denied the defendant’s motion to preclude certain evidence; thereafter,

the case was tried to the jury before Pierson, J.; verdict

and judgment for the plaintiff; subsequently, the court

denied the defendant’s motion for remittitur, and the

defendant appealed to this court; thereafter, the court

denied the defendant’s motion to open the judgment,

and the defendant filed an amended appeal. Affirmed.

Jack G. Steigelfest, for the appellant (defendant).

Lawrence C. Sgrignari, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

MOLL, J. The defendant, Robert D. Windom, appeals

from the judgment of the trial court denying various

motions that he filed in the present action commenced

by the plaintiff, Kristine S. Anthis, in favor of whom

the court rendered judgment following a jury trial. On

appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly

denied his (1) motion in limine, (2) motion for remittitur, and (3) motion to open, which, the defendant contends, effectively resulted in a double recovery by the

plaintiff and a double payment by the defendant with

respect to property damage expenses incurred by the

plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which are undisputed, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this

appeal. On January 12, 2017, the plaintiff commenced

the present action, sounding in negligence and recklessness, against the defendant, arising out of a July 12,

2015 incident during which the defendant, while

attempting to back his motor vehicle toward the garage

of his residence, lost control of his vehicle, which struck

the front of the plaintiff’s neighboring home.1 On March

23, 2017, the defendant filed an answer, in which he

did not assert any special defenses.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed a trial management report, stating in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff

expects to file a motion in limine seeking to preclude

the defendant from referencing and/or introducing evidence of any documentation which relates to [the] plaintiff’s recovery of damages from her [homeowners]

insurer.’’ The plaintiff did not file any such motion

thereafter.

The matter was tried to the jury in August, 2018.

On August 21, 2018, prior to the start of evidence, the

defendant filed a motion in limine, dated August 20,

2018, seeking an order ‘‘prohibiting the plaintiff from

offering into evidence the cost of [her] home repairs,’’

which the defendant contended were paid for by the

plaintiff’s homeowners insurer, or, in the alternative,

permission to ‘‘cross-examine the plaintiff on the fact

that her home repair expenses were paid for by her

own [homeowners] insurance company.’’ The same day,

following argument, the trial court denied the motion

in limine. At trial, evidence was admitted into the record

reflecting that, in the aftermath of the July, 2015 incident, the plaintiff and her spouse had paid, among other

things, $36,750 in home repair expenses and incurred

$14,264.23 in temporary housing costs.2

On August 22, 2018, the jury returned its verdict in

favor of the plaintiff, awarding $55,738.54 in compensatory damages, consisting solely of economic damages,3

as to all counts. The jury also awarded the plaintiff

punitive damages, the amount of which was later determined by the court, on the basis of the jury’s finding
that she had proven common-law recklessness.

On August 27, 2018, the defendant filed a motion for

collateral source reduction and a motion for remittitur.

In both motions, the defendant asserted that, in order

to prevent a double recovery by the plaintiff, the court

had to reduce the jury’s verdict to account for insurance

payments received by the plaintiff from her homeowners insurer. On August 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed objections to both motions. On September 17, 2018, the court

held a hearing on those postverdict motions. The same

day, the court denied the motion for collateral source

reduction and sustained the plaintiff’s objection

thereto. On September 18, 2018, the court denied the

motion for remittitur and sustained the plaintiff’s objection thereto. Thereafter, the court rendered judgment

on the jury’s verdict in the amount of $75,723.05, consisting of $55,738.54 in compensatory damages,

$19,205.25 in punitive damages, and $779.26 in taxed

costs. On October 9, 2018, the defendant filed this

appeal.

On November 7, 2018, the defendant filed a motion

requesting that the trial court open the judgment and

reconsider its decision declining to reduce the jury’s

verdict. On November 15, 2018, the plaintiff filed an

objection thereto. On December 21, 2018, after hearing

argument on December 10, 2018, the court denied the

motion to open. The defendant then amended this

appeal to encompass that decision. Additional facts and

procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion in limine. We disagree.

We begin by setting forth the standard of review

governing this claim. ‘‘A trial court may entertain a

motion in limine made by either party regarding the

admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence. . . .

The judicial authority may grant the relief sought in the

motion or other relief as it may deem appropriate, may

deny the motion with or without prejudice to its later

renewal, or may reserve decision thereon until a later

time in the proceeding. . . . [T]he motion in limine

. . . has generally been used in Connecticut courts to

invoke a trial judge’s inherent discretionary powers to

control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent

occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the

right of any party to a fair trial. . . . The trial court’s

ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only

upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. . . . We will make every reasonable presumption

in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only

upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus,

our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions

of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and

reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it
did.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McBurney v. Paquin, 302 Conn. 359, 377–78, 28

A.3d 272 (2011).

In his motion in limine, the defendant moved to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding her

home repair costs, which he asserted had been paid

for by her homeowners insurer. The defendant contended that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff should not be able to double

dip, and unfairly suggest to the jury that all [of] her

extensive repair costs were never paid,’’ because,

according to the defendant, this would create a risk

that the jury might improperly inflate any noneconomic

damages that it chose to award or be swayed to award

punitive damages.

During argument on the motion in limine, the defendant’s trial counsel asserted that it was inequitable for

the plaintiff to ‘‘double dip’’ by seeking economic damages that included property damage costs paid for by

her homeowners insurer. The defendant’s trial counsel

further argued that the plaintiff intended to offer into

evidence personal checks reflecting payments made by

her for the home repairs, which would falsely suggest

to the jury that she had paid for them with her own

funds without the contribution of insurance proceeds.

In response, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the

motion in limine was procedurally improper because

(1) the defendant had failed to file a trial management

report indicating that he intended to file any such

motion, and (2) the defendant’s trial counsel had represented in chambers that he would not be ‘‘inquiring

on issues of insurance.’’ The plaintiff’s counsel further

argued that the plaintiff would be prejudiced if evidence

regarding her property damage expenses was precluded

or, alternatively, the defendant was permitted to crossexamine her on the insurance payments remitted to

her by her insurer. Additionally, the plaintiff’s counsel

argued that the plaintiff had not been made whole by

the insurance payments and that her insurer was a

collateral source, such that the insurance proceeds that

it had remitted to her could not be deducted from the

jury’s economic damages award. Thereafter, the court

asked the plaintiff’s counsel whether it was his position

‘‘that to the extent the defendant is entitled to any sort

of reduction for amounts received by [the plaintiff] that

that reduction would be addressed appropriately in

some sort of posttrial proceeding.’’ The plaintiff’s counsel responded that the defendant ‘‘would have, obviously, the opportunity to file posttrial motions and the

court would then have to entertain those issues.’’ The

court thereafter denied the defendant’s motion in

limine.

On appeal, the defendant asserts that the court

abused its discretion in declining to preclude evidence

regarding the plaintiff’s home repair costs because her

homeowners insurer had paid those expenses and, thus,
admitting evidence of those costs enabled the plaintiff

to seek a double recovery for the same expenses in the

form of economic damages.4 At the time of the court’s

denial of the motion in limine, however, although there

was no dispute that the plaintiff’s insurer had paid the

plaintiff on an insurance claim submitted by her in

relation to the July, 2015 incident, the total amount of

the plaintiff’s home repair expenses and the total

amount and nature of the insurance proceeds received

by the plaintiff were unknown. Indeed, during argument, the court observed that ‘‘the fact is that there

may actually be a discrepancy between the amount [the

plaintiff] paid out for [the] repairs and . . . the amount

[the plaintiff] was reimbursed by [her] insurer.’’ The

court later addressed the defendant’s double recovery

claim in adjudicating his motion for remittitur, with

respect to which the parties created an evidentiary

record. Under these circumstances, we find no error

in the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion in limine.5

II

We next turn to the defendant’s intertwined claims

that the trial court improperly denied his motion for

remittitur and his motion to open.6 These claims are

unavailing.

We begin by setting forth the relevant standards of

review. With respect to a motion for remittitur, ‘‘the

trial court is required to review the evidence in the light

most favorable to sustaining the verdict. . . . Upon

completing that review, the court should not interfere

with the jury’s determination except when the verdict

is plainly excessive or exorbitant. . . . The ultimate

test [that] must be applied to the verdict by the trial

court is whether the jury’s award falls somewhere

within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages

or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense

of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury

[was] influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or

corruption. . . . The court’s broad power to order a

remittitur should be exercised only when it is manifest

that the jury [has awarded damages that] are contrary

to law, not supported by proof, or contrary to the court’s

explicit and unchallenged instructions. . . . Accordingly, we consistently have held that a court should

exercise its authority to order a remittitur rarely—only

in the most exceptional of circumstances . . . and

[when] the court can articulate very clear, definite and

satisfactory reasons . . . for such interference. . . .

‘‘[O]ur review of the trial court’s decision [to grant

or to deny remittitur] requires careful balancing. . . .

[T]he decision whether to reduce a jury verdict because

it is excessive as a matter of law . . . rests solely within

the discretion of the trial court. . . . [T]he same general principles apply to a trial court’s decision to order

a remittitur. [Consequently], the proper standard of

review . . . is that of an abuse of discretion. . . .
[T]he ruling of the trial court . . . is entitled to great

weight and every reasonable presumption should be

given in favor of its correctness.’’ (Citations omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted.) Ashmore v. Hartford

Hospital, 331 Conn. 777, 782–83, 208 A.3d 256 (2019).

With regard to a motion to open, ‘‘[t]he principles

that govern motions to open or set aside a civil judgment

are well established. Within four months of the date

of the original judgment, Practice Book [§ 17-4] vests

discretion in the trial court to determine whether there

is a good and compelling reason for its modification or

vacation. . . . The exercise of equitable authority is

vested in the discretion of the trial court . . . to grant

or to deny a motion to open a judgment. The only

issue on appeal is whether the trial court has acted

unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion. . . .

In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action.’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Jepsen v. Camassar, 196 Conn. App. 97, 119–

20, A.3d (2020).

In his motion for remittitur, the defendant moved for

a reduction of the jury’s verdict ‘‘in order to account

for homeowners insurance payments already received

by the plaintiff.’’ The defendant asserted that the economic damages awarded by the jury correlated to the

property damage costs incurred by the plaintiff, and

that the majority of the property damage expenses had

been paid for by the plaintiff’s insurer such that a

remittitur was necessary to prevent the plaintiff from

receiving a double recovery. The defendant cited Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67, 71, 557 A.2d

540 (1989), for the proposition that ‘‘a plaintiff may be

compensated only once for his or her damages for the

same injury.’’ In her objection, the plaintiff argued that

our Supreme Court in Gionfriddo determined that a

plaintiff could not recover damages from a joint tortfeasor after having recovered identical damages for the

same injury in a prior action against the other joint

tortfeasors. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s

reliance on Gionfriddo was misplaced because the

present action did not involve joint tortfeasors. The

plaintiff further argued that the resolution of the defendant’s motion was controlled by our Supreme Court’s

decision in Saint Bernard School of Montville, Inc. v.

Bank of America, 312 Conn. 811, 95 A.3d 1063 (2014),

in which the court concluded that a defendant was not

entitled to a reduction of a plaintiff’s verdict to account

for insurance proceeds received by the plaintiff because

‘‘[u]nder case law dating back more than one century,

th[e] court has held that a defendant is not entitled to

be relieved from paying any part of the compensation

due for injuries proximately resulting from his [or her]

act where payment comes from a collateral source,

wholly independent of him [or her].’’ (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Id., 841.
During the hearing on the defendant’s motions for

collateral source reduction and remittitur, the court

admitted into evidence two exhibits offered by the

defendant’s trial counsel. The first exhibit was a cover

letter, dated October 20, 2015, accompanied by a packet

of documents, sent by the plaintiff’s homeowners

insurer to the defendant’s automobile liability insurer,

requesting that the defendant’s insurer pay $52,786.20

as reimbursement for the payment that it made to the

plaintiff on her insurance claim. The second exhibit

was a one page financial log indicating that a payment

in the amount of $48,395.22 was remitted by the defendant’s insurer to the plaintiff’s insurer on February 12,

2016. The financial log categorized the payment as a

‘‘Loss Payment’’ with respect to ‘‘KRISTINE ANTHIS/

Property Damage.’’ The financial log provided no additional details concerning the nature of that payment.7

In arguing in support of the motion for remittitur,

the defendant’s trial counsel asserted that the jury did

not hear evidence of the payment by the plaintiff’s

homeowners insurer to the plaintiff for the property

damage costs she incurred, and that maintaining the

jury’s verdict would provide the plaintiff with a windfall.

The court questioned the defendant’s trial counsel as

to whether the plaintiff was enjoying a double recovery,

given that the present case did not involve multiple

tortfeasors, and that the plaintiff had paid premiums in

order to receive the benefit of the insurance proceeds

from her insurer. The defendant’s trial counsel

responded that the defendant’s automobile liability

insurer had reimbursed the plaintiff’s homeowners

insurer for its payment to the plaintiff, such that the

present case was distinguishable from a situation in

which an insured party simply receives insurance proceeds from his or her insurer. In opposition to the

motion for remittitur, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that

Saint Bernard School of Montville, Inc. v. Bank of

America, supra, 312 Conn. 811, governed. The plaintiff’s

counsel further argued that the $48,395.22 payment

remitted by the defendant’s insurer to the plaintiff’s

insurer did not match the $51,786.20 sum paid to the

plaintiff by her insurer,8 and that the evidence did not

detail the nature of the payment by the defendant’s

insurer to the plaintiff’s insurer (i.e., the specific items

it covered).

In denying the defendant’s motion for remittitur, the

court determined that the defendant was seeking a

remittitur to prevent a double recovery by the plaintiff,

where the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer had paid ‘‘the

great majority of the plaintiff’s property damage

expenses . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The court rejected the defendant’s reliance on Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, supra, 211 Conn. 67, stating

that the present action involved neither joint tortfeasors

nor satisfaction for a loss that was the subject of multi-
ple judgments. Additionally, citing Saint Bernard

School of Montville, Inc. v. Bank of America, supra,

312 Conn. 841–42, the court observed that the plaintiff

had paid premiums in exchange for the coverage provided by her insurer and that, ‘‘[i]f there must be a

windfall certainly it is more just that the injured person

shall profit therefrom, rather than the wrongdoer

[being] relieved of his [or her] full responsibility for his

[or her] wrongdoing.’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.)

After the court rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s

favor and after the defendant filed this appeal, the

defendant filed a motion to open the judgment. In that

motion, he asserted that, in denying his motion for

remittitur, the court addressed the issue of double

recovery, but it did not consider the distinct issue of

double payment; that is, whether the jury’s verdict, in

effect, obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff twice

for the same damages. The defendant argued that,

although his motions for remittitur and collateral source

reduction ‘‘on their face focus[ed] on the plaintiff’s double recovery . . . the defendant at oral argument on

the motions also argued that a failure to reduce the

verdict in this case would amount to double payment.’’

The defendant asserted that the payment by his automobile liability insurer to the plaintiff’s homeowners

insurer, in effect, constituted a payment by him, such

that requiring him to pay the economic damages

awarded by the jury, consisting of the plaintiff’s property damage expenses, would result in a double payment by him. In addition, the defendant argued that the

court’s reliance on Saint Bernard School of Montville,

Inc. v. Bank of America, supra, 312 Conn. 811, in denying his motion for remittitur was misguided because

that case did not address a situation in which a plaintiff’s

insurer pursues a subrogation claim against a defendant’s insurer. The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s insurer, after paying the plaintiff for the property

damage costs, had become equitably subrogated to the

plaintiff’s rights to seek recovery from the defendant

and that, once the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer had

pursued the equitable subrogation claim against the

defendant’s insurer, the plaintiff was barred from seeking damages from the defendant on the basis of the

property damage expenses that she had incurred.

In her objection to the motion to open, the plaintiff

argued that no good and compelling reason existed to

warrant opening the judgment because, inter alia, the

defendant had failed to properly raise the issue of double payment before the court in his pleadings or in his

postverdict motions. The plaintiff further argued that

her loss ‘‘exceeds the damages recovered from [her]

insurer and the amount [her] insurer recovered from

the defendant’s insurer . . . .’’ In a reply brief, the

defendant asserted, inter alia, that (1) he raised the

double payment issue during argument on his postver-
dict motions and that the parties, during argument on

his motion in limine, had agreed to litigate issues regarding insurance payments posttrial, and (2) the plaintiff

had been made more than whole with regard to her

property damage expenses by way of the insurance

proceeds received from her homeowners insurer and

the jury’s verdict.

In denying the defendant’s motion to open, the court

first turned to the defendant’s double payment claim.

Addressing the defendant’s assertion that the court had

failed to consider his double payment claim in denying

his postverdict motions, the court determined that the

defendant had failed to timely or properly raise that

claim to the court, thereby abandoning it along with

his related equitable subrogation claim. Specifically, the

court determined that the double payment and equitable

subrogation claims were not briefed by the defendant

in either his motion for collateral source reduction or

his motion for remittitur. The court further determined

that the defendant raised the double payment claim

for the first time during argument on his postverdict

motions, without citation to any relevant legal authority.

The court concluded that it had the discretion to decline

to consider claims raised for the first time during argument without legal briefing or citation to relevant, supporting legal authority. In addition, observing that a

defense based on payment had to be asserted by way

of a special defense in accordance with Practice Book

§ 10-50,9

the court stated that the defendant had failed

to assert a payment defense in his answer and that it

would ‘‘not allow [the defendant] to raise it for the first

time on a postjudgment basis.’’

Turning next to the issue of double recovery, the

court relied on the rationale set forth in its denial of

the defendant’s motion for remittitur and concluded

that the plaintiff was not receiving a double recovery.

The court acknowledged the defendant’s argument that

Saint Bernard School of Montville, Inc. v. Bank of

America, supra, 312 Conn. 811, was distinguishable on

the ground that the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer in

the present case had pursued a subrogation claim

against the defendant’s automobile liability insurer;

however, the court declined to address that argument

‘‘in light of the fact that in this case, the defendant did

not seasonably or properly raise the issue of double

payment . . . .’’

The crux of the defendant’s claims on appeal is that

(1) the jury’s verdict obligated him to double pay the

plaintiff for her home repair expenses and (2) the plaintiff is barred from seeking recovery for those expenses

because her homeowners insurer pursued a subrogation claim against the defendant’s automobile liability

insurer. The defendant asserts that he adequately raised

the issues of double payment and equitable subrogation

in his motion in limine, in his motion for remittitur,
and/or during argument on those motions, and, therefore, the court erred by declining to consider those

issues in deciding his motion for remittitur and his

motion to open. The defendant further asserts that, on

the merits of his double payment and equitable subrogation claims, he is entitled to a reduction of the verdict.

For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded.

Our review of the defendant’s pleadings and prejudgment motions reveals no mention of the issues of double

payment and equitable subrogation. The defendant did

not assert payment as a special defense10 or plead a

right of setoff.11 In his motion in limine, the defendant

cursorily stated that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff’s home repair bills

were paid . . . by her [homeowners] carrier, which

was in turn reimbursed by the defendant’s [automobile]

insurance carrier,’’ and that ‘‘[the] plaintiff’s counsel

is aware that the defendant’s insurance carrier . . .

reimbursed the plaintiff’s [homeowners] carrier for

most of these expenses’’; however, the defendant did

not make any cognizable assertion that he was facing

a possible double payment, nor did he raise his equitable

subrogation claim.12 In his motion for remittitur, the

defendant asserted that he was seeking a remittitur

‘‘in order to prevent a double recovery’’; however, the

defendant did not refer to his automobile liability

insurer or present his claims of double payment and

equitable subrogation therein.

The record reveals that the defendant raised his double payment claim for the first time during argument

on his motion for collateral source reduction, which

immediately preceded argument on his motion for

remittitur. The defendant’s trial counsel stated in relevant part that, ‘‘in this case, [the defendant’s] insurance

company has already paid these damages. . . . [The

defendant’s insurer], in effect, is being asked to pay

this again to the plaintiff and that just doesn’t make

sense to me.’’ He did not cite any legal authority in

presenting that particular argument.13 During argument

on the motion for remittitur, at the outset of which the

defendant’s trial counsel asserted that ‘‘many of the

same arguments [raised during argument on the motion

for collateral source reduction] apply,’’ counsel again

argued that the defendant was being asked to double

pay. He did not cite any legal authority in support of that

argument.14 Additionally, the defendant’s trial counsel

made no perceivable reference to the defendant’s

related equitable subrogation claim during argument on

the defendant’s postverdict motions.

In light of the foregoing, the defendant failed to raise

his equitable subrogation claim to the trial court in any

manner during the prejudgment proceedings. He raised

his double payment claim for the first time during argument on his motions for collateral source reduction and

remittitur; however, he did not support those claims

with citations to any relevant legal authorities. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court

did not err by declining to consider those claims in

deciding the defendant’s motion for remittitur. See

Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown &

Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 132 Conn. App. 85, 97, 30

A.3d 38 (2011) (noting that trial court properly exercised discretion not to consider claim raised for first

time during argument and without citation to legal

authority and, therefore, declining to review claim on

appeal), aff’d on other grounds, 311 Conn. 123, 84 A.3d

840 (2014).

We further conclude that the court did not err by

declining to consider the defendant’s double payment

and equitable subrogation claims in deciding the defendant’s motion to open, notwithstanding that those

claims were briefed and argued in connection therewith. In deciding a motion to open, a trial court is not

required to consider a claim raised for the first time

therein. See Hirsch v. Woermer, 184 Conn. App. 583,

593, 195 A.3d 1182, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 938, 195

A.3d 384 (2018). Similarly, a court need not grant a

movant a proverbial second bite at the apple by considering a claim raised in a motion to open that the movant

had failed to present properly to the court at an earlier

juncture. Accordingly, we discern no error in the court’s

decision not to address the defendant’s double payment

and equitable subrogation claims when the defendant

failed to raise those claims, either adequately or at all,

to the court prior to it rendering judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

Even if we were to agree with the defendant that he

had properly raised his double payment and equitable

subrogation claims to the trial court, the defendant cannot prevail on the merits thereof on the record before

us. The defendant’s claims are grounded in his contention that his automobile liability insurer reimbursed

the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer for the property

damage expenses incurred by the plaintiff that constitute the majority of the economic damages awarded by

the jury. The evidence in the record—in particular, the

cover letter and accompanying packet sent by the plaintiff’s insurer to the defendant’s insurer, and the financial

log submitted by the defendant in support of his motions

for collateral source reduction and remittitur15—demonstrates only that the defendant’s insurer made a

$48,395.22 payment to the plaintiff’s insurer in relation

to the plaintiff’s insurance claim. The evidence does not

include a dollar for dollar breakdown of the $48,395.22

payment, which does not match the $51,786.20 sum

remitted by the plaintiff’s insurer to the plaintiff. It is

unknown what portion, if any, of the payment by the

defendant’s insurer was intended to recompense the

plaintiff’s insurer for the property damage expenses

incurred by the plaintiff. Without evidence detailing

the precise nature of the payment by the defendant’s

insurer, the defendant’s double payment and equitable
subrogation claims fail.16

In sum, we reject the defendant’s claims that the trial

court improperly denied his motion for remittitur and

his motion to open.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 Counts one and three of the plaintiff’s operative complaint sounded in

negligence and common law recklessness, respectively. In count two, the

plaintiff alleged that (1) the defendant’s operation of his motor vehicle

violated General Statutes § 14-222, and (2) the defendant’s violation of § 14-

222 was a substantial factor in causing the injuries, damages, and losses

claimed by the plaintiff, enabling her to recover double or treble damages

pursuant to General Statutes § 14-295. The plaintiff later withdrew count two.

2 One of the plaintiff’s exhibits indicated that the total sum of temporary

housing costs was $16,264.23, which included a $2000 refundable security

deposit that the plaintiff did not claim as part of her damages.

3 As reflected in interrogatories answered by the jury, the economic damages award consisted of the following: $36,750 for home repair expenses;

$14,264.23 for temporary housing costs; $149 for the cost of a sonogram for

the plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time of the July, 2015 incident; $496.88

for the cost of an emergency tarp placed over the entryway of the home

and other related services; and $4078.43 for professional services used by

the plaintiff and her spouse to assist them in hiring a contractor to repair

the damage to the home. The jury did not award noneconomic damages.

4 The defendant also contends that evidence of the home repair costs was

prejudicial because it ‘‘would tend to suggest a starting point for evaluating

the noneconomic damages sought by the plaintiff.’’ This argument is unavailing as the jury did not award the plaintiff noneconomic damages.

5 We also note that the defendant filed the motion in limine shortly before

the start of evidence. The defendant did not file a trial management report

indicating that any such motion would be filed, and the plaintiff represents

that the defendant’s trial counsel, in chambers, represented that he did not

plan to file motions in limine. During argument on the motion in limine, the

defendant’s trial counsel conceded that the motion in limine had been filed

‘‘late.’’ It was well within the court’s discretion to deny the motion in limine

under these circumstances, as well.

6 The defendant is not challenging on appeal the denial of his motion for

collateral source reduction.

7 The court also admitted into evidence as a plaintiff’s exhibit a portion

of the plaintiff’s homeowners insurance policy.

8 The letter sent by the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer to the defendant’s

automobile liability insurer indicated that the plaintiff’s spouse had paid a

$1000 deductible, which would be refunded to the plaintiff’s spouse upon

payment by the defendant’s insurer in the amount of $52,786.20 to the

plaintiff’s insurer.

9 Practice Book § 10-50 provides in relevant part: ‘‘No facts may be proved

under either a general or special denial except such as show that the plaintiff’s statements of facts are untrue. Facts which are consistent with such

statements but show, notwithstanding, that the plaintiff has no cause of

action, must be specially alleged. Thus . . . payment (even though nonpayment is alleged by the plaintiff) . . . must be specially pleaded . . . .’’

10 In denying the defendant’s motion to open, the trial court determined

that the defendant had failed to assert a special defense of payment in

compliance with Practice Book § 10-50. We need not consider the effect of

the defendant’s failure to plead payment as a special defense in resolving

his claims on appeal.

11 Practice Book § 10-54 provides in relevant part: ‘‘In any case in which

the defendant has either in law or in equity or in both . . . [a] right of setoff

. . . against the plaintiff’s demand, the defendant may have the benefit of

any such setoff . . . by pleading the same as such in the answer . . . .’’

12 During argument on the motion in limine, the defendant’s trial counsel

made a similar statement, that the defendant’s automobile liability insurer

had reimbursed the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer for its payment to the

plaintiff. The defendant’s trial counsel presented no cognizable arguments,

however, concerning the defendant’s claims of double payment and equitable subrogation.

13 Earlier during argument on the motion for collateral source reduction,
the defendant’s trial counsel cited Rathbun v. Health Net of the Northeast,

Inc., 315 Conn. 674, 110 A.3d 304 (2015), to support the proposition that

‘‘Connecticut for many, many years has not allowed double recoveries.’’ In

Rathbun, our Supreme Court concluded that General Statutes § 17b-265 (a)

authorized a designated assignee of the Department of Social Services to

seek reimbursement from Medicaid recipients for medical costs recovered

by the recipients from liable third parties. Id., 693, 703. Rathbun did not

involve a claim of double payment. Later during argument, the defendant’s

trial counsel cited Jones v. Riley, 263 Conn. 93, 818 A.2d 749 (2003), which,

he posited, illustrated why collateral source hearings are geared to prevent

double recoveries. In Jones, our Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff

was entitled to offset a reduction of her economic damages award by the

amount of premiums she had paid attributable to the medical payments

coverage provision of her automobile liability insurance policy only, rather

than by the amount of premiums she had paid for the entire policy. Id.,

94–95. Jones, likewise, did not concern a double payment claim.

14 At the beginning of argument on the motion for remittitur, the defendant’s trial counsel cited Rent-A-PC, Inc. v. Rental Management, Inc., 96

Conn. App. 600, 901 A.2d 720 (2006), which, he contended, contained a ‘‘very

good discussion by [this court] citing a lot of other older cases on how trial

courts should not permit a double recovery.’’ In Rent-A-PC, Inc., this court

affirmed the trial court’s judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff on its

unjust enrichment claim and on a breach of contract claim raised by the

defendant in a counterclaim. Id., 601–604. Rent-A-PC, Inc., did not involve

a claim of double payment.

15 On September 19, 2018, one day after the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for remittitur, the defendant filed a ‘‘supplemental memorandum’’ seeking to present to the court additional documents ‘‘evidencing that

the defendant’s insurance carrier . . . paid the majority of the plaintiff’s

property damage expenses.’’ The majority of the appended documents

appears to be a copy of the cover letter and a portion of its accompanying

packet, which were introduced into evidence by the defendant during the

hearing on his postverdict motions. The remaining appended documents

include a purported check from the defendant’s automobile liability insurer

payable to the plaintiff’s homeowners insurer in the amount of $48,395.22

and an apparent invoice regarding the payment by the defendant’s insurer.

These appended documents were not properly before the court, as the

defendant filed them following the court’s denial of his motion for remittitur

and without permission from the court. Even if the defendant had timely

and properly submitted them, and the plaintiff had no objection to them,

we are not convinced that these appended documents, in conjunction with

the evidence properly in the record, establish that the payment by the

defendant’s insurer to the plaintiff’s insurer operated to reimburse the plaintiff’s insurer with respect to the property damage expenses incurred by the

plaintiff and awarded to her as economic damages by the jury.

16 The defendant asserts that, in the event that we agree with the trial

court that he failed to present his double payment and equitable subrogation

claims properly to the court, the court committed plain error by failing to

reduce the jury’s verdict or, in the alternative, requests that we exercise

our supervisory authority pursuant to Practice Book § 60-2 to review the

merits of his claims. As we have concluded in this opinion, even assuming

that the defendant had properly raised these claims to the trial court, the

defendant cannot prevail on the merits thereof on the record before us.

Thus, we need not address further the defendant’s request to invoke these

extraordinary remedies.