What To Look For In A Personal Injury Attorney In Connecticut

Hiring a personal injury attorney in Connecticut is not always an easy thing to do. Many questions may be filling your mind. Should you hire the firm with all of the ads on television or the one with the full page ad in the yellow pages? Does their number of years in business equal a good lawyer? To help you answer these questions, here are a few things that you should look before you hire an attorney.

Experience

Experience means something different to different people. To some, a personal injury attorney in Connecticut who is a 20-year veteran of the court system is experienced. To others, an attorney with 100 cases under their belt is experienced. Neither is necessarily right. You need an attorney who has multiple cases under their belt that are similar to yours. How is a 20 veteran tax attorney going to help you with a product liability case?

Fee Scale

Every personal injury attorney in Connecticut has their own fee scale. Each is different. What you need to look for is an attorney who will offer you a no-fee, no-obligation initial consultation. During the first visit, the best attorneys will provide you with a written scale of all fees that you may face during the disposition of your case. The same attorney should work on ”no win-no pay” or ”contingent fee” basis. That means that you will not owe any attorney fees if you do not win your case. Of course, you will be required to pay any necessary court fees and investigative fees.

Company Track Record

One of the best indicators of the abilities of a personal injury attorney in Connecticut is their track record. Just like in baseball, it does not matter how many times you have been to the plate, if you always strike out you probably are not any good. Research a firms track record. The end result of legal cases are public domain. You may not be able to view the monetary settlement, but you will be able to see who won.

What you have to know about a personal injury attorney in Connecticut is their experience, their track record of winning, and the fee scale that you will be facing. You may have more questions, but these three will go a long way towards helping you feel confident in your attorney.

Connecticut Times Square Bomber Pleads Guilty

From ABC News

Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to trying to explode a car bomb in Times Square on May 1, and to receiving terror training from the Pakistani Taliban, and warned that further attacks on the U.S. were coming.

‘Other Woman’ Files Harassment Suit Against ESPN in Stamford Court

From CBS NEWS

Nine months ago, most of America had never heard of Brooke Hundley.

But then a tabloid detailed her steamy affair with baseball analyst and former general manager Steve Phillips, a married man. Both Hundley and Phillips were fired from their jobs at ESPN. Now, Hundley is suing, saying she suffered emotional distress.

The scandal made for damaging headlines, CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor reports. Brooke Hundley, a 22-year-old production assistant at ESPN, was having an affair with one of the network’s baseball analysts, Steve Phillips, former general manager of the New York Mets.

Phillips had been married to his wife Marni for 19 years.

His affair with Hundley began after a meeting at major league baseball’s all star weekend last July, Hundley 24-years Phillips’ junior.

Phillips claims when he tried to end the relationship a month later, Hundley turned to stalking, sending Marni Phillips a letter detailing lurid sexual encounters and describing birthmarks on her husband’s body.

Brooke Hundley was also dismissed due to quote “misconduct.” She is now suing the sports network for at least $15,000 dollars in damages from lost wages, emotional distress, and damage to her reputation ( Read the 5-Count Complaint ).

Richard Hayber, Hundley’s attorney, told CBS News, “It may be that ESPN is more concerned about their own public image than they were about Mrs. Hundley’s rights. You’ll have to ask them.”

In a statement to CBS News, ESPN says, “Hundley’s claims are without merit and we will vigorously defend against them.”

No Fault Divorce in New York

From the New York Times

ALBANY — The State Senate on Tuesday, clearing aside decades of opposition, put New York on a course to adopt no-fault divorce — the last state to do so. It approved legislation that would permit couples to separate by mutual consent, a major shift with sweeping implications for families and lawyers.

Under current divorce law, one spouse must take the blame, even if both sides agree that a marriage cannot be saved. To get a divorce, one party must allege cruel and inhuman treatment or adultery or abandonment, or the couple must be legally separated for one year.

The new legislation still has to pass the State Assembly, which is considering two bills that would include some version of no-fault divorce. But advocates said Tuesday that they believed that victory in the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans until last year, gave the measure momentum and a high likelihood of gaining approval in the Assembly, which is also controlled by Democrats.

CT Ruling: Exhaustion, Applicable Policy, & Authorized driver

From our colleague Stu Ketaineck (ketainecklaw@gmail.com)

In a case to be released on June 8, 2010, the Appellate Court reverses summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant UM insurer.  ERICA TODD v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (AC 31041). The following quotes and paraphrases from the decision.

The plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which her vehicle, which was covered by the defendant’s underinsured and conversion coverage policy, was struck by another vehicle that was operated by Christopher Bernacchi. Bernacchi’s vehicle was a leased vehicle that was owned by American HondaFinance Corporation (Honda) and insured by Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) under a liability policy with limits of $1 million. The plaintiff brought an action alleging negligence against Bernacchi and alleging that Honda was vicariously liable for Bernacchi’s negligence. The plaintiff also alleged that Bernacchi was an authorized driver of the leased vehicle. Bernacchi had a liability policy with GEICO with limits of $100,000. Bernacchi’s carrier paid the plaintiff the $100,000 limit of his policy, and the plaintiff settled with Honda for $275,000 through its carrier, Pacific.

The plaintiff then brought an action against the defendant for underinsured and conversion coverage benefits. The plaintiff, purportedly having discovered that Bernacchi had not been an authorized driver of the leased vehicle at the time of the accident, alleged the payment of $100,000 by Bernacchi’s carrier and, further, that the ‘‘plaintiff has exhausted all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the plaintiff had not exhausted all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident since Pacific, as the liability insurer of Honda, paid only $275,000 out of its available coverage of $1,000,000 to settle.

Summary judgment was granted.  The trial judge concluded the plaintiff’s acceptance of the $275,000 settlement precluded the recovery of underinsured motorists benefits, as the applicable liability policies had not been exhausted.

On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to establish that the Pacific policy covering Honda’s leased vehicle was an ‘‘ ‘applicable policy’ ’’ within the meaning of § 38a-336a because there was still a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Bernacchi was an authorized driver of the vehicle.  The Appellate Court agreed.

In order for the defendant at the summary judgment stage to establish that the Pacific policy was applicable at the time of the accident, within the meaning of the statute, it was necessary for the defendant to make it quite clear that Bernacchi was an authorized driver under the terms of the lease. The defendant failed to do this.  The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s reliance on the assertion that, as a matter of law, if the insured has accepted funds in settlement from any of the third parties involved in the negligence action, he is precluded from thereafter recovering uninsured, underinsured or conversion coverage benefits under his own policy.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

*(Stu is currently available for assistance in Alternative Dispute Resolution. He can be reached at ketainecklaw@gmail.com)

Coming Soon

More articles coming soon.