## Facts

- Mark Williams, a Connecticut resident insured under a Connecticut automobile policy issued by State Farm, was injured in a motor vehicle collision in New Windsor, New York.
- The other driver, Rolly Bain, carried New York’s minimum $10,000 liability coverage; Bain’s insurer paid Williams the $10,000 limit.
- Williams sought additional payment under his State Farm uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, which provided $25,000 per person, claiming Bain was underinsured relative to that limit.
- The State Farm policy limited UM/UIM payments to damages the insured is “legally entitled to collect” from the owner or operator of the uninsured/underinsured vehicle.
- New York’s no-fault statute barred recovery for non-economic loss unless the claimant suffered a statutory “serious injury” or economic loss exceeding $50,000; Williams’s injuries and expenses did not meet those thresholds.
- An arbitration panel applied Connecticut law to the insurance contract but applied New York tort law to determine whether Williams was “legally entitled to recover” from Bain; it denied UM/UIM benefits.
- The Connecticut Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied Williams’s application to vacate.
- Williams appealed, challenging the choice of law and the determination that he lacked a legally cognizable claim against Bain.

## Issues

1. Whether, under a Connecticut UM/UIM policy, the phrase “legally entitled to collect” requires applying the tort law of the state where the accident occurred to determine the insured’s ability to recover from the tortfeasor.
2. If the accident-state tort law applies, whether New York’s no-fault threshold barred Williams from recovering tort damages from Bain, thereby precluding UM/UIM benefits.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration award.
- The court held that, while Connecticut law governs the insurance contract, the “legally entitled to collect” requirement incorporates the substantive tort law governing a direct action against the tortfeasor, which here was New York law.
- Applying New York’s no-fault thresholds, Williams was not legally entitled to recover tort damages from Bain; therefore, he was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits under the State Farm policy.

## Legal Principles

- “Legally entitled to collect” in UM/UIM coverage requires the insured to show a legally cognizable right to recover damages from the tortfeasor under the applicable substantive tort law, not merely proof of fault.
- In multistate accidents, the law governing tort liability and damages is generally the law of the jurisdiction where the accident and underlying tort occurred.
- UM/UIM coverage is designed to place the insured in the position the insured would have occupied if the tortfeasor had been insured to the same extent as the UM/UIM limits; it does not create a broader right to recover than would exist in a direct tort action.
- When accident-state law bars or limits tort recovery (including by a no-fault “serious injury” threshold), the insured’s failure to satisfy those conditions defeats the “legally entitled to collect” prerequisite to UM/UIM benefits.

## Conclusion

Because the accident occurred in New York and New York tort law would govern a direct action against the tortfeasor, the policy’s “legally entitled to collect” clause required application of New York’s no-fault thresholds. Williams did not meet those thresholds and thus lacked a legally cognizable tort claim against Bain, so State Farm owed no UM/UIM benefits beyond the tortfeasor’s $10,000 payment.


Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 641 A.2d 783 (Conn. 1994)