Over the course of her 20+ year career as a trial lawyer, Ms. Rossi has represented a wide range of large and small businesses as either plaintiff or defendant in litigation. In business litigation matters, Ms. Rossi believes that assessing exposure and risk early on in the litigation, and what is likely to be disclosed in the discovery phase of litigation, is essential to obtaining the best possible results for her business clients. Her methodical approach to each business litigation matter is detail-oriented and result-driven. Since forming her own firm in 2010, Ms. Rossi’s business clients include Fortune 500 companies, mid-size businesses with domestic and international presence, and small family owned businesses throughout the Northeast.


Legal disputes frequently arise from construction projects for a variety of reasons, including that projects often are long-term and complex. The parties involved in the project simply cannot foresee every detail and contingency at the outset of the project. Ms. Rossi represents general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors and homeowners in legal disputes involving residential and commercial construction projects. Since forming her own firm in 2010, Ms. Rossi’s achievements in this area of practice include the settlement of a breach of contract lawsuit on behalf of her client, a family-owned land clearing company, in the amount of $1.225 million.


Personal injury cases require unique focus and commitment to not only the person injured, but to the person’s family as well. It is essential that the client feels comfortable throughout the process, given the sensitive nature of such matters. In handling such cases, Ms. Rossi is determined to ensure that the injured party, or his or her estate, receives the maximum amount of compensation that is deserved and reasonable given the factual circumstances. Ms. Rossi represents plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury actions, including wrongful death actions. Since forming her own firm in 2010, Ms. Rossi’s achievements in this area of practice include the settlement of a wrongful death lawsuit for $1.475 million.

Attorney Jennifer Rossi

Law Office of Jennifer Rossi LLC

104 Pioneer Dr.
West Hartford, CT 06117

[email protected]

*Jennifer Rossi has been selected to Connecticut Super Lawyers list each year since 2013. Her primary areas of practice are: business litigation, general litigation and alternate dispute resolution. more details

Business Litigation

  • Jury returned verdict in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client, the defendant in a breach of contract litigation after just 35 minutes of deliberation. Before trial and after discovery, Ms. Rossi successfully convinced counsel for plaintiff to withdraw three out of four counts of its Complaint against her client, owner of commercial property in Hartford. The remaining count, involving claims for commissions allegedly due the plaintiff under an exclusive right to sell listing agreement was tried to a jury in Rockville Superior Court by Ms. Rossi and the result was a jury verdict in her client’s favor. In addition, the Court awarded Ms. Rossi’s client costs sought and permissible in Connecticut.
  • Defended directors of company in complex commercial litigation pending in Hartford Superior Court, Connecticut, involving a variety of shareholder derivative claims and multi-million dollars in damages alleged. The claims alleged included: breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and civil theft, imposition of constructive trust, appointment of corporate receiver and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). On behalf of the company’s directors, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated claims, which included the drafting of complicated releases and covenants not to compete. During the course of the litigation, Ms. Rossi successfully had the breach of fiduciary duty claims stricken as a matter of law and had the imposition of constructive trust claim stricken as to three of the four plaintiffs. Ms. Rossi further obtained dismissal of all derivative claims and the CUTPA claim as to all plaintiffs because, as beneficiaries of a trust that owns shares in the company, they lack standing to pursue a shareholder’s derivative suit since they are not shareholders as a matter of law under the Connecticut Business Corporations Act.
  • Ms. Rossi successfully convinced plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, against a foreign entity, a holding company based in the United Kingdom. Ms. Rossi argued that the holding company has no physical presence within the United States, no registered agent for service of process within the United States, and that any service of the Complaint upon the holding company would need to comply with all foreign entity service requirements under the New York Rules of Practice, which had not been done. Ms. Rossi further argued that New York courts have no jurisdiction or venue over this particular lawsuit generally. Not only did Ms. Rossi convince plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss the lawsuit, she convinced plaintiff’s counsel to not refile it.
  • Ms. Rossi obtained a favorable decision on behalf of her client, a national student loan lender, following extensive briefing and oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment wherein Ms. Rossi raised issues of pre-emption as a defense to plaintiff’s CUTPA claims against her client. The Stamford Superior Court, Connecticut court agreed with Ms. Rossi that the Higher Education Act preempts the majority of plaintiff’s claims. In its Decision, the Court stated, “[h]ere, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant ‘failed to inform [the plaintiff] of her other options if she was unable to comply with [economic deferment] requirements as [the defendant] had represented them’ and refused to inform the plaintiff of’ what other information she could submit as proof of her recent income which would allow [the defendant] to determine her eligibility for [economic deferment]. The plaintiff makes these allegations as part of her CUTPA claim. To the extent that CUTPA requires the defendant to disclose the information that the plaintiff sought, there is no genuine issue of material fact but that § 1098g preempts those factual allegations.” In addition, the Court further agreed with Ms. Rossi’s preemption argument, holding that plaintiff’s allegations of misrepresentation also are subject to express preemption stating, “[i]n the present case, the plaintiff’s misrepresentation allegations are not unlike those in Chae. The plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant misrepresented the documentation requirements to determine eligibility for economic deferment and misrepresented that the plaintiff had to pay all late fees before she could enter economic deferment are no different than a claim that the defendant failed to make proper disclosures to the plaintiff regarding its policies for economic deferment. …Accordingly, these aspects of plaintiff’s CUTPA claim are also subject to express preemption under § 1098g.”
  • Negotiated resolution of a lawsuit filed in Connecticut against her clients, a major airline and the airline’s President and Chairman. The claims asserted were misrepresentation and intent to defraud, and involved a certain contract. Plaintiff claimed that the contract was entered into on the basis of misleading statements. Ms. Rossi, on behalf of her clients, was able to negotiate resolution of the claims asserted, while leaving the contract intact.
  • On behalf of Massachusetts business, successfully negotiated settlement of its claim against large Connecticut insurer involving the insurer’s failure to pay storage fees to the business for storage of heavy equipment owned by the insurer for a period in excess of 19 months.
  • On behalf of Connecticut small business, successfully negotiated settlement of breach of contract claim against the business by a large national dealer of product, involving a business account and certain inventory, where issues of enforceability and ambiguity in the contract existed, and issues under CUTPA arose.
  • Following a three-day bench trial at Hartford Superior Court involving claims of breach of contract and violation of CUTPA against small Connecticut business owner, Ms. Rossi obtained judgment in favor of the business owner on the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim. The CUTPA claim alleged various misrepresentations and alleged wrongful withholding of money. The Court found in favor of the business owner on the CUTPA claim. And, as the prevailing party on the CUTPA claim, Ms. Rossi succeeded in obtaining an award of costs to her client.
  • Among her business clients, Ms. Rossi regularly represents a federally insured bank that is the United States based credit arm of one of the largest banks in the world. The following are examples of Ms. Rossi’s successes on behalf of the bank:
    • Ms. Rossi successfully shielded her client, a federally insured bank, from a $1 Million claim raised against it by a business seeking to recover those monies from the bank. The claims raised by the business resulted from its former employee’s use of the employee’s own, and several other business employees’, company credit cards to obtain cash advances and make purchases over a seven-year timeframe. The former employee was placed in a position of trust by the business. When the business ultimately discovered its employee’s actions, the employee was terminated by the business. The business then sought to recover its losses from three financial institutions, which losses amounted in total to nearly $3 Million.
      On behalf of her client, and in defense of the $1 Million Dollar claim asserted against it, Ms. Rossi argued, among other things, that the business had placed this employee in a position of authority, had paid company credit card bills for several years without protest, and that the business was the only one to blame for its losses due to its continued failure to appropriately supervise its employee and examine credit card statements documenting the charges. In addition, Ms. Rossi argued well-established law under the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), recognized throughout several circuit courts addressing such issues, irrespective of whether such claims are expressed as unauthorized use or fraud. At this point, any such claims are time-barred due to the one-year statute of limitations under TILA.
    • In response to a lawsuit filed by a consumer against Ms. Rossi’s client, a federally insured bank, in state court and seeking $800,000.00 in damages against the bank, alleging claims of negligence, gross negligence, fraud and trespass, the matter was removed to federal court and a motion to compel arbitration was filed, which was granted. Following extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, as well as defending against further claims asserted by the consumer in arbitration — violations of various federal statutes and a state criminal code, Ms. Rossi prevailed on behalf of her client. The arbitrator’s Award not only found in favor of the bank on the plaintiff’s claims against it, but also provided for a monetary award to the bank. While the consumer sought to set aside the arbitrator’s Award with the federal court, the court denied the consumer’s motion.
    • In response to a Complaint filed in Supreme Court in the State of New York against her client, a federally insured bank, and another, Ms. Rossi removed the case to federal court in the Western District of New York. The Complaint asserted claims against the bank, and another, for breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Laws, and other federal statutory violations. Following several months of negotiations, led by Ms. Rossi on behalf of all defendants, Plaintiff’s claims were resolved. Plaintiff thereafter voluntary dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants.
    • Negotiated resolution of a lawsuit brought against her client, a federally insured bank, involving allegations against her client for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud. Other claims were asserted against another party named as a defendant in the lawsuit. While the lawsuit initially was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Ms. Rossi successfully removed the lawsuit to federal court in New York. Thereafter, Ms. Rossi prevailed on her Motion to Dismiss the fraud claim on the basis that the allegations asserted by plaintiff in her Complaint did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud under Federal Rule 9(b) and New York and Second Circuit case law. Ms. Rossi later negotiated a resolution of all remaining claims against her client and the other defendant.
    • Following extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Rossi prevailed on behalf of her client, a federally insured bank, in arbitration proceedings involving claims of negligence, gross negligence, fraud, trespass, violations of various federal statutes, and a state criminal code. The arbitrator’s Award not only found in favor of the bank on the plaintiff’s claims against it, but also provided for a monetary award to the bank. The Award is in the process of being enforced in federal court.
    • Plaintiff dismissed lawsuit against Ms. Rossi’s client, a federally insured bank pending in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was brought against the bank, the bank’s board members, the CEO of the bank, and the FBI, alleging violations of truth-in-lending, violations of RICO, libel, slander and fraud. Ms. Rossi, with the assistance of local counsel, moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the bank on grounds of res judicata and hence, lack of jurisdiction. Sua sponte, the Court ordered that Plaintiff properly serve all Defendants within thirty days, but cautioned Plaintiff that the Court likely lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Within ten days after the Court’s Order, Plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit.
    • With the assistance of local counsel, Ms. Rossi succeeded in obtaining Judgment in favor of her client, a federally insured bank, in a lawsuit pending against it in Superior Court in Indiana. The lawsuit involved claims of a defective product purchased by the plaintiff, and alleged failure of the bank to investigate the consumer’s dispute involving that purchase before the time that the warranty on the product expired. After evidence, the Court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing on his claim against the bank.
    • After nearly a year of defending a federally insured bank in litigation pending in federal court in the Northern District of New York, and on the eve of Ms. Rossi’s Summary Judgment Motion being heard, the plaintiff dismissed all of his claims with prejudice against Ms. Rossi’s client, the bank. The lawsuit included allegations of: violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act, violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), deceptive acts and practices, and claims of an ancillary action and that a consumer class existed. Ms. Rossi and her client accepted the plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice. The Northern District of New York entered and approved the dismissal with prejudice.
    • Following trial in Massachusetts, District Court issued Judgment in favor of Defendant, Ms. Rossi’s client, a federally insured bank. Issues at trial involved claims of false imprisonment and unauthorized use, as well as allegations of duress to void a contract, and violations of the FCBA. At trial, Ms. Rossi presented evidence via cross-examination of Plaintiff, direct examination of a bank representative, and other documentary evidence, demonstrating inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony and that Plaintiff ratified and affirmed the contract. During her closing argument, Ms. Rossi tied the evidence into the well-established Massachusetts law to show, among other things, that duress could not be asserted against the bank because the bank did not cause the duress, that the Plaintiff had ratified and affirmed the contract anyway, and that the bank fully complied with its obligations under the FCBA. In a rather swift ruling, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client the very next day.
    • In a federal court case pending in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, Ms. Rossi took the lead in arguing preliminary procedural issues on behalf of her client, a federally insured bank, and 18 other separate businesses named as defendants. The procedural issues involved misjoinder of all 19 defendants in one lawsuit, including her client. Ms. Rossi’s Motion to Dismiss or Drop Certain Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21 was granted by the Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s case against Ms. Rossi’s client, separately created as the result of the granting of the Motion, was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
    • Succeeded in obtaining an Award in favor of her client, a federally insured bank, following a formal, in-person arbitration in Portland, Maine wherein testimony and evidence was presented. The allegations against the bank included various violations of certain Maine statutes designed to protect consumers, and claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Not only was Ms. Rossi successful in defending the claims asserted by the consumers against the bank, but she also was successful in obtaining an Award against the consumers in the total amount of the bank’s counterclaim.
    • Succeeded in obtaining an Award in favor of her client, a federally insured bank, following an arbitration before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in Atlanta, Georgia. Not only was Ms. Rossi successful in defending the claims against the bank, including breach of contract, violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), declaratory relief and equitable accounting, but she also was successful in obtaining an Award against the consumers in the total amount of the bank’s counterclaim, plus interest.
    • Convinced counsel for consumer to dismiss all claims with prejudice against federally insured bank in litigation filed in Iowa because the claims lacked factual and legal merit. The claims involved various violations of the Iowa Code designed to protect consumers.
    • Federal court in Maryland agreed with Ms. Rossi, that consumer’s claims against her client, a federally insured bank, involving violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and FCRA, §1681s-2 should be dismissed as a matter of law. While each of the other two defendants named in the lawsuit chose to settle out with the plaintiff consumer, Ms. Rossi and her client chose to stand and defend the consumer’s claims with success.
    • Following two separate arbitrations before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in Atlanta, Georgia, Ms. Rossi obtained Awards in both matters in favor of federally insured bank in claims involving: breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, accounting, declaratory relief, and violations of the FCBA, FCRA and the FDCPA. The arbitrators in these two separate matters agreed with Ms. Rossi that the claimants had failed to present evidence sufficient to prove their claims against the bank, and the claimants took nothing.
    • Following arbitration before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in San Francisco, California, Ms. Rossi obtained Award in favor of federally insured state chartered bank in claim involving: breach of contract, willfulness, attorney fees and costs, and violations of various California Civil Codes involving credit transactions, the FCBA and the FCRA. The arbitrator in this matter agreed with Ms. Rossi that the claimant was not harmed, is able to obtain credit, and had not met his burden of proof.
    • Obtained dismissal of federal court case involving claims of fraud, identity theft and violations of the FCRA on behalf of federally insured bank.
    • On behalf of federally insured bank, defended and successfully resolved high-stakes claims against the bank and a large Connecticut financial services company involving: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and negligence.
    • Along with Texas local counsel, Ms. Rossi defended a lawsuit brought against two federally insured banking institutions in Texas. As against Ms. Rossi’s client — one of the two federally insured banking institutions, Plaintiffs alleged violations of certain federal statutes, including the TILA. On behalf of her client, and with Texas local counsel, a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, and was granted by the Court, but without prejudice for Plaintiff to file an amended pleading. Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint. In response to the Amended Complaint, a second Motion to Dismiss was filed.
      On the second Motion to Dismiss, the Court dismissed, this time with prejudice, all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Ms. Rossi’s client. In its Order, the Court held that any further amendment of the complaint as to the TILA claim would be futile. As to the remaining alleged statutory violations against Ms. Rossi’s client, the Court held that the bank cannot be liable under those statutes either, and again held that any further amendment of the Complaint as to the remaining alleged statutory violations also would be futile.

Construction Litigation

  • Ms. Rossi obtained a $1.225 Million settlement in favor of her client, a land-clearing contractor.On behalf of her client, Ms. Rossi initiated two lawsuits in the Commonwealth against two Massachusetts towns, asserting claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The two lawsuits later were consolidated in the Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts.
    Following a devastating ice storm in December 2008 that raged through the Commonwealth, Ms. Rossi’s client was retained by the towns to perform disaster relief services, including the removal and disposal of all debris from town roads as a result of the storm. While written contracts were in place, and while Ms. Rossi’s client fully performed the services for the towns, her client was not paid at all by one town for its work, and was not fully paid by another town for its work.For over two years, Ms. Rossi aggressively pursued her client’s claims against the towns, including extensive written discovery, multiple depositions and multiple motions. The towns vigorously defended the lawsuits, including asserting twelve counterclaims against her client. Among other things, the towns argued that the contracts between Ms. Rossi’s client and the towns were invalid due to alleged noncompliance with various Massachusetts competitive bidding statutes and Massachusetts case law that favor municipalities and towns, and that have, historically, enabled towns to avoid contractual responsibilities. In response, Ms. Rossi argued inapplicability of the statutes and case law, exceptions to the statutes and case law even if they applied, and of course, argued full performance. Despite the towns’ efforts, Ms. Rossi never wavered in her pursuit of justice for her client.The claims were resolved at mediation for payment to Ms. Rossi’s client in the total amount of $1.225 Million.
  • Represented a general contractor in Connecticut in two consolidated construction litigation lawsuits in the Superior Court of New London, Connecticut involving a multi-million dollar commercial construction project. The general contractor, as Plaintiff, alleged claims of: breach of contract, quantum merit, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with business relations, violations of the Connecticut Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and foreclosure of the general contractor’s Mechanics Lien against the company that owns the property and buildings where the construction project took place, and who entered into the Contractor Agreement with Ms. Rossi’s client. Claims for tortious interference with business relations also were asserted against four officers/employees of the Defendant company.
    The Defendant company asserted Counterclaims against Ms. Rossi’s client for: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of CUTPA.
    While the lawsuits were filed in 2009, Ms. Rossi’s appearance in the matters on behalf of the Plaintiff, general contractor was in 2013, after the lawsuits sat stagnant on the docket for approximately two years. After her appearance in the lawsuits, Ms. Rossi aggressively pursued her client’s claims against the Defendant company and the four individual Defendants, and aggressively defended the claims against her client. After obtaining a Scheduling Order to secure a trial date for these matters, among other things, voluminous discovery was obtained, multiple depositions were conducted, and multiple court conferences and hearings were held. On the same day that trial initially was scheduled, Ms. Rossi negotiated a resolution of the lawsuits that was favorable to her client, the general contractor. The settlement sum is confidential.
  • Ms. Rossi represented the general contractor who was seeking its retainage from the owner of a large-scale construction project, who had failed and/or refused to release the retainage upon completion of the project. Although the owner sought to have the breach of contract claim stricken on the basis that the contractor had not substantially completed the project by the date stated in the “time is of the essence” clause in the construction contract, the Court denied the owner’s motion on this issue, and agreed with Ms. Rossi that sufficient facts were pled by the general contractor to sustain its breach of contract claim. The parties proceeded through relatively voluminous discovery and multiple lengthy depositions. The business day after the discovery deadline expired, Ms. Rossi’s client’s claim was successfully resolved. The settlement sum is confidential.
  • A subcontractor initiated a lawsuit against Ms. Rossi’s client, the general contractor on a multi-million dollar public construction project, seeking its retainage. The subcontractor further sought pre-judgment remedy. Ms. Rossi vigorously defended her client, asserting, among other things: that the lawsuit was premature in that the construction project was ongoing and no conditions precedent had yet been satisfied so as to cause any retainage to become due or owing to the subcontractor or anyone; that the subcontractor was ill-equipped and did not have sufficient manpower to perform the work, causing delays and excess costs which exceeded the retainage amount claimed by the subcontractor; and that there was no need for a prejudgment remedy because the payment bond provided sufficient insurance. In addition, Ms. Rossi argued that because the prejudgment remedy was in the form a garnishment sought against a town (the owner of the project) that was holding the retainage monies, no prejudgment remedy could be had under the theory of sovereign immunity. Following the filing of a motion to strike, the Court agreed with Ms. Rossi that the subcontractor’s claims of unjust enrichment and violation of CUTPA (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) would be stricken. Less than two weeks thereafter, the lawsuit was successfully resolved in its entirety. The settlement sum is confidential.
  • On behalf of homeowners, successfully negotiated settlement of claims before litigation was filed against builder of newly constructed luxury home, involving defects in the hardwood flooring throughout the first and second floors of the residence. The claims asserted included defective material, defective workmanship, improper supervision, breach of contract, breach of warranties and violation of the Connecticut New Home Warranty Act.
  • Following nearly four days of arbitration hearings on breach of contract and defective construction counterclaim, Ms. Rossi obtained six-figure monetary Award on behalf of clients, homeowners against luxury residential home builder in Connecticut. Among other items, the Award included damages for improper installation of shingles on a low pitch roof, improper installation of underlayment or sub-flooring under limestone tile, and improper construction of an attic dormer, main roof framing and exterior wall sheathing. In addition, because of the high amount of the Award, the home builder’s claim for payment due under the contract with the homeowners was negated, the lien filed by the builder on the property was released, and the builder was required to pay monetary damages to the homeowners.
  • Successfully challenged State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health’s investigation of an individual with 36 years of construction and septic system experience, which resulted in closure of the investigation because there was an insufficient basis for the State to proceed further.

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.