RTC&E is a trial firm keyed to defense and insurance issues. We are not only proud of our effectiveness in the courtroom and at the negotiating table, we are equally proud of our ability to minimize the legal costs of our clients through greater efficiency and technology, and to provide our clients with more responsive and dedicated service.

RTC&E Results


Jay Huntington recently represented the defendants in the jury case styled Tessier v. Rizzo, in the Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville.  Judge Sferrazza presided over the trial.    

At issue were plaintiff’s claimed damages arising from a dog bite.  The plaintiff, a phlebotomist, was bitten by a dog while in a home where the dog was being kept.  The plaintiff was sent to the home to draw blood from the co-defendant dog owner.

Because the offending dog was not up to date on the required rabies vaccinations, the plaintiff was required to undergo a series of injections that were painful and caused nausea.  The plaintiff claimed no continuing physical problems but alleged ongoing emotional problems including a fear of dogs.  Subsequently, the plaintiff joined the Navy and was on leave from active duty at the time of the trial.

Read more...
 
RTC&E Court Results

Attorney Frederick O’Brien Wins Appeal at the State Supreme Court

In Brooks v. Sweeney, 299 Conn. 196 (2010) Attorney Frederick O’Brien was successful in persuading the Connecticut Supreme Court to affirm a trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of all defendants and as to all counts.  In the underlying matter, the plaintiff had commenced a lawsuit against a municipal sanitarian, that individual’s supervisor and two municipalities.  The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and selective prosecution contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the sanitarian; negligent supervision and selective prosecution against the supervisor; and direct liability claims against the municipalities.

Read more...
 
Recent Decisions

The Appellate Court Allows Stacking of Uninsurance Coverage

In Lane v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 125 Conn.App.  (2010) the Connecticut Appellate Court held that an insured was not barred from collecting policy limits of two separate uninsured motorist insurance policies that cover the same vehicle.  In so doing, the court interpreted the scope of General Statutes § 38a-336 with respect to “stacking” of coverage.

Read more...