With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in proving or disproving the same facts is not enough to establish privity.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. This proposition from Mazziotti was later reaffirmed in Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 242 Conn. 384-85, where the court held that an employer could not be reimbursed for workers’ compensation payments made to an employee from the proceeds of uninsured motorist benefits received by, and payable to, that employee. Furthermore, the overwhelming weight of authority of the jurisdictions that have considered whether under-insured/uninsured motorist benefits are a collateral source have concluded that those benefits fall squarely within that rule. See, e.g., International Sales-Rentals Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof, 263 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 1972) (<HOLDING>); Respess v. Carter, 585 So. 2d 987, 988-90

A: holding that the plaintiff has the burden of proving an agreed allocation in a settlement as between the claims in which joint tortfeasor status was alleged so the court could determine the appropriate setoff amount to be applied against a money judgment entered in the plaintiffs favor after trial against a nonsettling defendant and remanding for further proceedings to determine the setoff amount
B: holding that joint tortfeasor defendant does not get setoff equal to amount of recovery injured plaintiff receives from carrier of his uninsured motorist coverage
C: holding term third party did not include an uninsured motorist carrier
D: holding that new mexicos uninsured motorist statute nmsa 1978 section 665301 1983 requires an insurer to offer um7 uim coverage in an amount equal to the liability limits of the policy and that the choice of the insured to purchase any lower amount functions as a rejection of that maximum amount of coverage statutorily possible
B.