Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency
87 N.Y.2d 81, 661 N.E.2d 142, 637 N.Y.S.2d 670 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's CPLR 4545(c), a personal injury award for economic loss may only be reduced by a collateral source payment if that payment directly corresponds to, and is intended to replace, the specific category of loss for which the award was granted.
Facts:
- In December 1988, Oden, a 48-year-old ironworker, was injured on a work site when a falling steel column struck him.
- The column was dislodged by a hydraulic crane.
- Oden's employer was Streeter Associates.
- As a result of his injuries, Oden was forced to retire from his job as an ironworker.
- Following his retirement, Oden became eligible for and began receiving disability retirement benefits.
- These disability retirement benefits were paid in lieu of the ordinary pension benefits he would have otherwise received.
- Under the terms of his disability retirement pension, Oden remained free to earn income from other types of work without forfeiting his benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Oden (plaintiff) sued the crane owner, operator, and others in a New York trial court.
- The defendants filed third-party claims against Streeter Associates, Oden's employer.
- Following a jury trial, Oden was awarded damages that included $66,000 for lost pension benefits and $80,000 for future lost earnings and health benefits.
- After a post-trial hearing, the trial court applied CPLR 4545(c) and reduced the total future economic loss award ($146,000) by the value of Oden's disability retirement benefits ($141,330).
- Oden (appellant) appealed the reduction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court's order, restoring the $80,000 award for future lost earnings and holding that the offset only applied to the corresponding category of lost pension benefits.
- Third-party defendant Streeter Associates (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does CPLR 4545(c) require a court to reduce a plaintiff's total economic loss award by the total value of all collateral source benefits received, or only by those benefits that directly correspond to and replace a specific category of economic loss for which damages were awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - Titone, J.
No. CPLR 4545(c) does not require a reduction of the total economic loss award by the total value of collateral sources; it only permits a reduction when a collateral source payment corresponds to and replaces a specific category of economic loss awarded by the jury. The statute, being in derogation of the common-law collateral source rule, must be strictly construed. The statute's use of the term "such cost or expense" suggests a direct correspondence is required between the item of loss and the collateral reimbursement. The legislative purpose behind the statute was to prevent double recovery for the same loss, not to provide a windfall to tortfeasors by allowing them to offset awards for one category of loss (e.g., future earnings) with benefits intended to replace another (e.g., pension). A disability pension that does not preclude other employment cannot be said to "replace or indemnify" lost future earnings. Therefore, the offset must be applied on an item-by-item basis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of New York's collateral source statute, CPLR 4545(c), by establishing the 'corresponding category' or 'item-by-item' approach. It rejects a 'total offset' method, which would have allowed defendants to aggregate all collateral source payments and subtract them from the total economic damages award. This ruling protects plaintiffs by ensuring that benefits intended for one purpose, like replacing a pension, cannot be used to wipe out a jury award for a different type of loss, such as lost future wages. The decision firmly places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate a direct link between the collateral source and the specific item of damages it purportedly replaces.
Unlock the full brief for Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency