LEWIS, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
As authorized by General Statutes § 52-418(a) the defendant, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, moves to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator incorrectly concluded that the "informed consent form," with which the plaintiff's employer, Friedkin Companies, Inc. (insured), attempted to elect lower UM/UIM benefits, did not comply with the provisions of General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2).
The arbitrator's decision, dated April 15, 2003, states, in relevant part: "This arbitrator, after review of both Briefs, applicable Conn. Statutes and all cited cases finds that the informed consent form fails to comply with the statutory requirements of 38a-336(a)(2) in that the type face of the required notice is not in twelve (12) point type."
General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2) states in relevant part: "Such informed consent form shall contain a heading in twelve-point type and shall state: "WHEN YOU SIGN THIS FORM, YOU ARE CHOOSING A REDUCED PREMIUM, BUT YOU ARE ALSO CHOOSING NOT TO PURCHASE CERTAIN VALUABLE COVERAGE WHICH PROTECTS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT HOW THIS DECISION WILL AFFECT YOU, YOU SHOULD GET ADVICE FROM YOUR INSURANCE AGENT OR ANOTHER QUALIFIED ADVISER."
In order to decide this motion it is necessary to define this court's scope of review. "[W]here judicial review of compulsory arbitration proceedings required by [§ 38a-336(c)] is undertaken . . . the reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the interpretation and application of the law by the arbitrators." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pondi-Salik, 262 Conn. 746, 751, 817 A.2d 663 (2003); see also Quigley-Dodd v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 256 Conn. 225, 245-48, 772 A.2d 577 (2001).
The defendant claims that strict compliance with the provisions of the statute is unnecessary in commercial fleet policies, like the one at issue here, because of the insured's sophisticated bargaining position as a large corporation. The defendant has cited no case for the proposition that the provisions of the current version of General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2) do not apply to commercial fleet policies involving large corporations. Thus, the defendant was required to follow the provisions of § 38a-336(a)(2).
The defendant also claims that General Statutes § 38a-336(a)(2) only requires the "heading" to be in twelve-point type and not the required notice. The relevant portion of § 38a-336(a)(2) states: "Such informed consent form shall contain a heading in twelve-point type and shall state [text of notice)." The plain meaning of this statute requires the "heading," which should contain the notification, to be in twelve-point type. CT Page 13670
Finally, in applying the statute to this case, the arbitrator correctly found that the defendant's "informed consent form" (Exhibit B, Defendant's Application) did not satisfy the statute. Specifically, the actual typeface of the "heading," which is notably located at the bottom of the consent form, appears to be approximately eight-point typeface, instead of the required twelve-point. Therefore, the defendant's motion to vacate the arbitration award is denied.
So Ordered.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE.