Personal Injury

• Ms. Rossi obtained a $1.475 Million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit.
  On behalf of her clients, the Estate and the surviving spouse of the decedent, Ms. Rossi filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Haven, Connecticut alleging claims of wrongful death, including those for: negligence, statutory negligence, negligence per se, statutory recklessness and loss of consortium.
  The decedent was a 34-year old father of three young children. While the decedent was operating his motorcycle in New Haven on a weekend afternoon in the fall of 2013, his motorcycle was violently struck by a 90-year old woman (the defendant in the lawsuit) who was operating her car from the opposite direction and turned left into the lane of travel of the motorcycle. The decedent was conscious for less than one hour. He died from the injuries he sustained in the accident. Defendant raised issues of comparative negligence in her pleading filed with the Court in response to the lawsuit.
  During the course of the litigation, and following Ms. Rossi’s review of the Arrest Warrant and Affidavits from police personnel responding to the scene of the accident, Ms. Rossi requested that the Court permit her to serve non-standard written discovery upon the defendant because the information obtained from the police records suggested that the defendant was using a cell phone at the time of the accident. Over-ruling the defendant’s objections, the Court permitted Ms. Rossi to serve non-standard written discovery, which included several questions involving defendant’s use of a cell phone at the time of the accident, her cell phone provider, hands-free devices used, and copies of cell phone records. Ms. Rossi also successfully convinced the Court to permit her to obtain information and records regarding defendant’s medical history over the course of the past 10 years because, as Ms. Rossi argued, defendant’s statements to police personnel after the accident reasonably raised questions about defendant’s vision and her medical condition generally, leading to concerns about defendant’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
  Following only five months of litigation, and as a direct result of her unwavering effort, Ms. Rossi convinced the defendant’s insurance company to pay the Estate $1.475 Million to settle the claims raised in the lawsuit (which was nearly the full policy limits available under defendant’s insurance).
• Defendant, an individual, had a lawsuit brought against him in Stamford Superior Court, Connecticut for, what initially was, a straight-forward negligence action, resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred in the parking lot of a high school in Fairfield County when Defendant was backing up out of a marked parking space. Plaintiff, a minor, along with her parent, alleged that when Defendant backed up his vehicle, the exhaust pipe of his vehicle contacted the minor Plaintiff in the leg as she was obtaining items from the trunk of her parent’s car (which had pulled into an undesignated parking area, leaving the tail end of Plaintiff’s vehicle sticking out into the parking lot where the minor then had to walk to obtain items from the trunk of that vehicle). The lawsuit continued for over a year as a standard negligence action.
  Thereafter, Plaintiffs amended their complaint against Defendant to include claims of common law recklessness and statutory recklessness. Defendant’s insurance company, who had been defending the negligence claim against him, then denied coverage to Defendant for the recklessness claims, leaving the Defendant’s assets personally exposed for any monetary damages resulting from the recklessness claims, including multiplied damages under relevant Connecticut General Statutes.
  Defendant retained Ms. Rossi to defend him two weeks before trial commenced. Within eight days of being retained, Ms. Rossi convinced Defendant’s insurance company that the recklessness claims pending against her client were not excluded by her client’s insurance policy. In a rare admission by an insurance company, and as a direct result of Ms. Rossi’s swift and unwavering efforts, arguing the current state of Connecticut law on this issue, as well as issues of statutory construction and the language contained within her client’s insurance policy, her client’s insurance company revised its position on coverage, withdrawing its position that there was no coverage under the policy for the recklessness claims.
  In addition, Ms. Rossi insisted that her client’s insurance company fully settle this case within her client’s policy limits immediately. One day after revising its coverage position, at the trial management conference at the Stamford Superior Court, the insurance company did just that.
  At the trial management conference, Ms. Rossi further argued in defense of Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the Plaintiffs’ claims for recklessness were unsupported by Connecticut law and would never reach a jury. As a result of her efforts, Plaintiffs’ demand for settlement was reduced by tens of thousands of dollars, and her client’s insurance company paid for the settlement in full.
  At the end of the day, Ms. Rossi’s client’s personal assets were protected. The lawsuit was fully settled and withdrawn. Plaintiffs signed a release of all claims against Ms. Rossi’s client, and the insurance company paid the settlement in full.
• Ms. Rossi was retained by a New Hampshire based equipment company to defend it and its driver in a lawsuit filed against the equipment company and driver in Hartford Superior Court, Connecticut, involving a motor vehicle accident and plaintiff’s claims of injuries. Plaintiff’s claims included alleged significant injuries to his arm and hand, resulting in surgery and thousands of dollars in medical expenses.
  Due to a series of unfortunate events, the equipment company found itself without insurance coverage for its truck that was involved in the accident. Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier also was named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
  Throughout the duration of the lawsuit, Ms. Rossi remained steadfast in her position of no liability for the accident by her clients, and that plaintiff’s alleged injuries pre-existed the accident and were diagnosed by a number of medical professionals years before. Ms. Rossi declined demands made by plaintiff to resolve the lawsuit, and consistently maintained the position that her clients were not paying any monies in this matter, were prepared to take this matter through trial, and that her clients should not even be named as defendants in the lawsuit in light of the uninsured motorist carrier being named. Among other things, Ms. Rossi also objected to responding to written discovery that deviated from standard written discovery in Connecticut, and declined plaintiff’s request for deposition of her client, the driver due to the notice being unreasonable, improper and untimely.
  The same week that trial initially was scheduled to commence, plaintiff withdrew all claims against all defendants, having reached a settlement with the uninsured motorist carrier. Ms. Rossi’s clients paid nothing toward the settlement. The uninsured motorist carrier never asserted crossclaims against Ms. Rossi’s client in the lawsuit.
• Defended national retailer in jury trial lasting over three weeks at the Hartford Superior Court in Connecticut in a personal injury/premises liability claim involving a trip and fall, traumatic brain injury and evidence of physical and economic damages in the millions. While plaintiff’s counsel and a judge reviewing the matter in an effort to resolve it valued the case at over $4 million and never offered resolution below that number, the jury returned a verdict for less than $450,000.
  Using information obtained from medical providers in trial subpoenas duces tecum involving the plaintiff’s possession of pre-accident radiographic films not previously disclosed, and following several pre-trial hearings, Ms. Rossi successfully obtained permission from Court to name an expert neuroradiologist late and only days before trial. The neuroradiologist’s testimony on comparison of before and after films delineated no radiological change.
  During the course of voir dire, Ms. Rossi obtained reinstatement of peremptory challenge used with juror of particular jury pool, following voir dire of a subsequent juror, revealing that entire jury pool was tainted.
  Ms. Rossi further prevented damaging admissions regarding liability and notice from being read to jury and introduced into evidence by defeating their reliability after repeatedly and successfully submitting contrary proof into evidence during witness examination at trial.