Stefan R. Underhill

The case involved Barbara Izzarelli's product liability claims against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, alleging that the design of Salem King menthol cigarettes—with heightened addictive properties and higher carcinogen levels than necessary—caused her larynx cancer after 25 years of smoking. A jury found R.J. Reynolds 58% responsible under strict liability and negligent design theories, attributing 42% responsibility to Izzarelli herself. R.J. Reynolds moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence of a unique defect, improper exclusion of risk factor testimony, erroneous admission of youth marketing evidence, and flawed jury instructions on Connecticut product liability law and punitive damages. The court denied the motions, holding that the trial evidence supported the verdict by showing the cigarettes were uniquely designed in ways that distinguished them from other tobacco products and that the challenged rulings and instructions were proper.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over a performance surety bond issued by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford for a condominium construction project contracted between Stonington Water Street Assoc., LLC and Hodess Building Co. After Hodess defaulted, Stonington sought to claim under the bond, but National Fire denied coverage due to alleged noncompliance with the bond's terms. Stonington then sued National Fire for breach of the bond, bad faith, and violations of Connecticut unfair practices statutes. The court granted National Fire's motion for summary judgment, holding that Stonington had failed to strictly comply with multiple conditions precedent in the bond and construction contract, which prejudiced the surety and discharged its obligations under Connecticut and Second Circuit law requiring strict compliance with surety bond terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Barbara Izzarelli, who sued defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for larynx cancer allegedly caused by her long-term smoking of Salem King cigarettes, resulting in a 2010 jury verdict awarding her over $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages under strict liability and negligent design theories. Years earlier, in 2001, Izzarelli had filed a sealed offer of judgment for $400,000 under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-192a, which the defendant received but did not accept. The court granted Izzarelli's motion for offer-of-judgment interest, rejecting the defendant's objections that no separate "notice of filing" document had been served and that the award would violate due process. The core reasoning was that the statute requires only filing the offer with the court and providing notice of the offer to the defendant (which occurred contemporaneously), with no requirement for an additional titled notice document, and that the statutory sequence for triggering interest had been followed since the final judgment exceeded the offer amount.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between ACSTAR Insurance Company, as reinsurer and administrator for United Coastal Insurance Company, and its insured, Clean Harbors, Inc., over whether ACSTAR must defend and indemnify Clean Harbors in a separate lawsuit brought by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing for costs related to a 1991 fuel spill at a New Jersey site. Clean Harbors had subcontracted drilling work that caused the spill, later settled its claims against the subcontractor Trinity for $38,000 and released Trinity from liability without notifying United Coastal until years later, and ACSTAR argued that this release breached the policy's subrogation clause and prejudiced its rights. The court granted partial summary judgment to Clean Harbors and denied it to ACSTAR, holding that Clean Harbors did not breach the subrogation clause. The core reasoning was that the USF&G policy insuring Trinity contained a pollution exclusion that would have barred coverage for Trinity's drilling operations to test for pollutants, so ACSTAR had no viable subrogation rights that could have been impaired by the settlement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Barbara Izzarelli, who developed larynx cancer after smoking Salem King cigarettes for over 25 years and sued manufacturer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for strict liability and negligent design. A jury awarded her over $7.9 million in compensatory damages (after reduction for 42% comparative responsibility) and found that punitive damages were warranted due to reckless disregard for user safety. Under Connecticut's Product Liability Act, the court was tasked with setting the amount of punitive damages, which cannot exceed twice the plaintiff's actual damages, while analyzing whether the traditional common-law limit to litigation costs (less taxable costs) still applies in statutory product liability actions. The court's reasoning centered on following Connecticut state law in this diversity case, reviewing the statute's text and history, and determining the appropriate punitive award within the statutory cap.

torts & liability

This case involves constitutional and tort claims by individuals subjected to an early-morning immigration raid in New Haven in 2007, who sued ICE officers, supervisors, and the United States for alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations as well as state-law claims such as negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss: it dismissed claims for declaratory relief, negligent hiring, Fourth Amendment claims against certain defendants, and Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims, while denying dismissal of Fourth Amendment claims against some supervisors and equal protection claims, and allowing further discovery on negligent training and supervision. The core reasoning was that the FTCA provides only money damages and bars declaratory relief, some claims lacked sufficient factual allegations while others plausibly showed supervisory notice or discriminatory motive, the case was not barred by immigration statutes or Heck v. Humphrey, and a Bivens remedy was not precluded by the immigration scheme.

immigrationcivil rightstorts & liability

This case is a bankruptcy adversary proceeding brought by the Chapter 7 trustee of Bolin & Company, LLC, a Greenwich jewelry retailer, against Sally Ogden for her conduct during the week of July 30, 2004, when Bolin closed its doors. After a bench trial, the district court addressed claims including trespass, conversion, statutory theft, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act arising from Ogden's entry into the store and removal of inventory. The court concluded that Ogden was not liable, reasoning that she acted pursuant to valid security agreements as a secured creditor exercising repossession rights, that Bolin's agent authorized her entry, and that her actions did not breach the peace or meet the elements of the asserted torts or CUTPA, which the court interpreted to require conduct in a person's primary line of business.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

Patricia McIntire sued under the Social Security Act to challenge the Commissioner's final decision terminating her Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income after an ALJ found her disability had ceased due to medical improvement as of June 1, 2004. The ALJ had determined she could perform sedentary work, relying on her treating physician's opinion, and the Appeals Council denied review after receiving additional medical evidence. The district court granted McIntire's motion for remand and denied the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm, concluding that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Appeals Council failed to properly evaluate new and material evidence relating to her condition under the applicable regulations, which differ for DIB and SSI claims. The court identified errors including inadequate consideration of evidence about her ongoing foot impairment and the comparison point decision from 2002.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this diversity jurisdiction case, ALV Events International, a Philippines-based concert promoter, sued Kofi DeGraft Johnson after paying him substantial sums to book Justin Timberlake (and initially Rihanna) for a concert in Manila, only to discover Johnson had no authority or ability to secure the performances and ceased communications. The plaintiffs asserted claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, statutory theft under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564, and violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Johnson failed to appear or defend after service, leading the court to enter default and, after a hearing on damages, grant default judgment to ALV on most claims while dismissing The Concert Group’s claims for failure to state a viable cause of action. The court awarded ALV $1,165,274.04, comprising actual damages for payments and expenses, trebled under the theft statute, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a, based on the uncontested evidence of Johnson’s misrepresentations and retention of funds.

business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned Quinnipiac University's compliance with Title IX after it eliminated the women's volleyball team and added competitive cheerleading while managing varsity rosters in ways that affected female athletes' participation opportunities. The court held that the university discriminated on the basis of sex during the 2009-10 academic year by failing to provide equal athletic participation opportunities for women. It reasoned that competitive cheerleading did not qualify as a varsity sport under Title IX because the activity remained too underdeveloped and disorganized to offer genuine athletic participation. The court further concluded that Quinnipiac could not count certain cross-country runners multiple times across indoor and outdoor track teams, as injured or red-shirted participants did not receive meaningful opportunities, even though roster manipulation practices had changed since the preliminary injunction.

civil rights

The case concerned Everspeed Enterprises' claims that Skaarup Fortune Shipping breached a charter party agreement to lease the vessel Bunga Saga 9, along with related allegations of a performance guarantee and alter ego liability against affiliated Skaarup entities and individuals. Everspeed, having pursued arbitration in Singapore and attachments in other courts with limited success, sought a prejudgment remedy under Connecticut law to attach assets and pendente lite relief in this federal admiralty action. After an evidentiary hearing, the court issued findings of fact on the parties and procedural history, analyzed jurisdiction and standards for relief including corporate veil piercing under federal maritime law, and addressed motions while noting certain waivers and limitations on recoverable amounts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing Bronson Partners, LLC and Martin Howard for false advertising of two weight-loss products, Chinese Diet Tea and the Bio-Slim Patch, after the court had already granted summary judgment on liability. This ruling addressed remedies under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, including the proper measure of equitable restitution, the liability of relief defendants H&H Marketing and Sandra Howard, and the appropriateness of injunctive relief. The court awarded $1,942,325 in restitution measured by the defendants' unjust gains, held H&H jointly and severally liable as Martin Howard's alter ego, found Sandra Howard not liable because she provided legitimate services, and issued a permanent injunction barring future deceptive advertising of weight-loss products. The core reasoning drew from Second Circuit precedent in FTC v. Verity Int'l, Ltd. and related cases interpreting the FTC Act to authorize ancillary equitable remedies that restore traceable consumer funds without imposing punitive personal liability.

business & regulatory

The case involved TIFD III-E's suit to recover approximately $62 million in taxes paid after the IRS challenged its reporting of income from the Castle Harbour partnership with two Dutch banks. Following a Second Circuit reversal on whether the banks were bona fide equity partners under Commissioner v. Culbertson, the district court on remand addressed whether the banks qualified as partners under I.R.C. § 704(e). The court analyzed factors such as the banks' capital interests, limited management participation, lack of services provided, and whether capital was a material income-producing factor in the aircraft leasing business to determine the banks' status for tax allocation purposes.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which HSB sought to recover settlement payments made in connection with personal injury and wrongful death claims stemming from a 1999 natural gas explosion at a Michigan nursing home that it had inspected. After settling the underlying suits for $7.35 million, HSB filed suit against its insurer SVB under a claims-made policy issued in December 2000, seeking damages for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment; SVB counterclaimed for reformation of the policy to bar coverage based on a prior-knowledge exclusion and HSB’s nondisclosure of the incident. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court applied Connecticut choice-of-law rules and contract-interpretation principles to determine the meaning of the term “circumstance” in the exclusion and whether HSB reasonably anticipated claims. The court held that the policy should not be reformed and denied SVB’s motion on the reformation count while granting HSB’s corresponding motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Edward and Samantha Lang in a personal injury lawsuit arising from a car accident where Samantha was driving under the influence. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Empire, holding that the Supplemental Liability Protection Policy's exclusions for accidents occurring while the insured is under the influence of alcohol and for use of the vehicle in violation of the rental agreement barred coverage. The reasoning centered on the clear language of the policy and rental agreement, Samantha's DUI conviction, and the determination that Connecticut law does not require voiding these exclusions based on public policy or arguments that the contract was one of adhesion.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, minor party candidates challenged Connecticut's Citizens' Election Program (CEP), a voluntary public financing system enacted as part of the 2005 Campaign Finance Reform Act to address corruption scandals. The plaintiffs argued that the CEP's qualifying criteria and funding formulas unconstitutionally burdened their First Amendment right to political opportunity by disproportionately benefiting major-party candidates. After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that the CEP was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the program provided major-party candidates with public grants exceeding historical fundraising and spending levels, used a statewide proxy that artificially boosted major-party strength in uncompetitive districts, and imposed qualifying thresholds for minor-party candidates that were nearly impossible to meet without any offsetting burden on participants.

electionsfree speech

Gary Damato filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2004 Connecticut state convictions for inciting injury to persons, attempted assault on a prosecutor, and attempted murder, for which he received a 21-year sentence. The petition raised claims including the admission of evidence of prior misconduct (his earlier assault case prosecuted by the victim) and alleged errors in jury instructions. The district court applied the deferential standards of § 2254(d), presuming the correctness of state court factual findings and requiring a showing that the state decisions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court denied the petition and the accompanying motion for summary judgment, concluding that the prior-misconduct evidence was properly admitted to prove motive under standards consistent with due process and that other claims either were unexhausted or did not establish a constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a class action securities lawsuit brought by investors who purchased shares in CBRE Realty Finance, Inc.'s 2006 IPO, alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs claimed that CBRE's registration statement and prospectus negligently failed to disclose the severe financial distress of debtor Triton Real Estate Partners, Inc., including missed payments, cost overruns, and stalled projects on loans worth about $51 million, in violation of GAAP standards for impairment. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing insufficient facts showing required disclosure or standing for certain plaintiffs. The court granted the motion to dismiss the operative complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, without reaching the standing issue.

business & regulatory

The case involved Plainville Electrical Products Co. suing Vulcan Advanced Mobile Power Systems, LLC and related Vulcan entities and officers over an unpaid 2004 contract for engineering work on a power plant project in Iraq, following an earlier arbitration award against Vulcan AMPS; PEPCO sought to pierce the corporate veil and alleged fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil RICO violations based on misrepresentations about payment and use of PEPCO's work in settlements with third parties. The district court granted the moving defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim with prejudice, as well as claims for veil piercing, fraudulent transfer, fraud, and CUTPA, while dismissing or denying other claims like unjust enrichment on varying terms. The core reasoning was that PEPCO failed to adequately plead predicate acts of mail or wire fraud with particularity or within the statute of limitations for RICO, and that other claims lacked sufficient allegations of reliance, alter ego status, or other required elements.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved VIP of Berlin, LLC challenging the Town of Berlin's enforcement of its sexually oriented business ordinance, which defined an 'adult oriented store' as any retail establishment with a 'substantial or significant portion' of its stock in adult books, videos, or novelties. VIP sought to open a general retail store with no more than 12% adult inventory and applied for zoning compliance, but the town denied the application, requiring an SOB license that was unavailable due to the store's proximity to a residential area. VIP moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as applied. The court granted the motion, finding that VIP would suffer irreparable harm and had shown a clear likelihood of success on its as-applied vagueness claim under the ordinance's imprecise language.

free speechbusiness & regulatory