two recent decisions of this court; see Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799, 817, 695 A.2d 1010 (1997), and Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375, 698 32 (1922) (“The authorities, both numerically and in weight, agree that a defendant owes to the injured compensation for injuries the proximate cause of which was his own negligence, and that their payment by third parties cannot relieve him of this obligation; and that whether the motive impelling their payment be affection, philanthropy, or contract, the injured is the beneficiary of their bounty and not him who caused the injury. In short, the defendant has no equitable or legal claim to share in the amount paid for the plaintiff.”); Regan v. New York & New England R. Co., 60 Conn. 124, 130, 22 A. 503 (1891) (<HOLDING>). The collateral source rule was embraced by
holding that obligation to pay mortgage on home was satisfied by payment of fire insurance proceeds where husband maintained fire insurance policy holding funds received by plaintiff from an insurance policy that was procured by the defendant and for which a premium was paid are not a collateral source holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that where plaintiff brought claim for fire loss after allegedly being compensated by its insurer defendant could not claim benefit from insurance because proceeds came to the plaintiff from a collateral source wholly independent of the defendant and which as to him was res inter alios acta 