Preview
NO. TTD-CV22-6026019-S : SUPERIOR COURT
JEANNETTE PELLETIER : J.D. OF ROCKVILLE
VS. : AT TOLLAND
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., ET : April 29, 2024
AL
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF COMPROMISE
DATED APRIL 26, 2023
The Defendant, CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through
the undersigned counsel, moves this Court to grant this Motion to strike the Plaintiff’s Offer
of Compromise dated April 26, 2024. In the alternative, the Defendant moves this court to
grant an extension of the time to respond to the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise up to and
including 45 days from the completion of the Plaintiff’s deposition (currently scheduled for
May 31, 2024). The reason for the Defendant’s request is that crucial discovery has not yet
been made available to the Defendant to evaluate the claims being brought by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant, despite multiple attempts, as not been given the opportunity to
conduct a deposition of the Plaintiff, Jeannette Pelletier. The Defendant has attempted to do
so on four sperate occasions (all of which cancelled by Plaintiff’s counsel). Additionally,
Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide necessary discovery related to Plaintiff’s claimed
injuries and disclosed that the Plaintiff had surgery, which they are attempting to claim was
the result of the subject incident at issue in this case, only last month. For these reasons, if the
Offer of Compromise is not stricken or, in the alternative, an extension is not given, then the
Defendant will be in a position that eliminates the ability to make an informed decision as to
settlement with the necessary discovery to evaluate the merits of resolving the claim for the
amount offered.
1
The Plaintiff’s deposition was initially noticed by Defense counsel to take place on
November 13, 2023. Notice of this deposition was properly sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on
September 19, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled the deposition on November 8, 2023. The
Plaintiff deposition was then scheduled by Defense counsel for February 13, 2024. Notice of
this second deposition was properly sent by Defense counsel on January 12, 2024. The
deposition was again cancelled by Plaintiff’s counsel on February 12, 2024. Defense counsel
then noticed the Plaintiff’s deposition, for a third time, to be conducted on March 25, 2024 (a
date provided to Defense counsel by Plaintiff’s counsel). Notice of this deposition was
properly sent to Plaintiff’s attorney on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel, on February 29,
2024, requested the deposition be rescheduled to March 27, 2024. Defense counsel agreed and
Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled for March 27, 2024. Proper notice was once again sent
to Plaintiff’s counsel to reflect their requested change in date by Defense counsel on March
13, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel again, on March 26, 2024, marked off the Plaintiff’s deposition.
Defense counsel then noticed the Plaintiff’s deposition for May 31, 2024. This deposition is
currently scheduled to move forward. The Defendant has also filed a Motion to Compel the
Plaintiff’s deposition to ensure that the deposition will be conducted timely and will not
subsequently be cancelled again.
Additionally, the lawsuit arises out injuries the Plaintiff claims to have suffered when
ice fell from another vehicle and impacted her vehicle on February 22, 2021. In the Plaintiff’s
responses to Defendant’s Request for Interrogatories and Production, interrogatory #7, the
Plaintiff claimed to have been, “physically recovered in June of 2021.” Despite this claim that
the Plaintiff was physically recovered in June of 2021 from her injuries, it was disclosed to
Defense counsel that the Plaintiff had surgery on cervical spine in October of 2023 (a surgery
which Plaintiff’s counsel claims is related to the February 22, 2021, loss). Defense counsel
was not made aware of this fact until March 26, 2024. Notably, the scheduling order filed by
agreement in this case (see Entry No. 118) stipulated that discovery would be completed by
2
February 1, 2024, nearly two months before this surgery was ever disclosed by Plaintiff’s
counsel. This surgery was not disclosed at any point prior to March 26, 2024 (despite notice
of the Plaintiff’s deposition being first sent in November of 2023) and the Defendant had no
way of knowing that the Plaintiff would be claiming a surgery that took place over two years
after she claimed to have fully recovered from her injuries. The Defense had no reason to
believe that any treatment sought after June of 2021 would be later claimed in this lawsuit or
that records for subsequent treatment would need to be requested.
In response to learning of the Plaintiff’s surgery, Defense counsel filed a motion for
Order of Compliance (see Entry No. 123) to attempt to evaluate the merits of these injuries, to
determine if they are casually related to the February 22, 2021, loss and allow for the
defendant to properly evaluate the case. The Defendant’s motion was granted by this court on
April 15, 2024 (see Entry No. 123.10). Compliance of which was ordered within fourteen
days of the order. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a Notice of Compliance (see Entry No. 124) on
April 17, 2024, stipulating to documents provided. Next, a Motion for Extension of Time Re
Discovery Motion or Request (see Entry No. 125) was filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on April 17,
2024. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a second Notice of Compliance (see Entry No. 126) which
outlines additional documentation that was provided. Notably, records from Trinity Health of
New England and Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Hospital have not yet been provided by
Plaintiff’s counsel. While not having fully complied with the Defendant’s Motion of Order of
Compliance dated April 1, 2024 (see Entry No. 123), Plaintiff’s counsel filed an Offer of
Compromise (see Entry No. 127) on April 26, 2024.
This Court has broad authority to impose reasonable bounds and order on discovery in
civil actions. Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-14(a). “The Court's rule-making and
sanctioning authority encompasses the power to strike an offer of compromise from the record
…. This sanction is not specifically mentioned in Practice Book § 13-14, but it falls well
3
within the ambit of judicial power contemplated by both the court's inherent authority and the
rules of practice.” Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772, 795 (2011).
“The purpose of § 52-192a is to encourage pretrial settlements and, consequently, to
conserve judicial resources. . .. The strong public policy favoring the pretrial resolution of
disputes . . . is substantially furthered by encouraging defendants to accept reasonable offers
of judgment." This rule helps to ensure that defendants have sufficient opportunity to gather
the information needed to make a reasoned decision whether to accept a settlement offer. If a
plaintiff deprives a defendant of material information sought through the discovery process,
the benefits of the statutory waiting period vanish: based on a distorted view of the case
arising from limited information or misinformation, the defendant may reject a reasonable
offer of compromise or accept an unduly high offer. By striking offers of compromise, where
the facts so warrant, the trial court can both enforce compliance with discovery obligations
and advance the policy goal expressed in § 52-192a by facilitating reasonable settlement of
litigation.” Id. 800-01.
Given the above, allowing the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise to remain in effect will
unfairly prejudice the Defendant by forcing it to make an uninformed decision as to
settlement without the opportunity to conduct discovery necessary to evaluate the merits of
resolving the claim for the amount offered. This reasoning constitutes either striking
Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise or, alternatively, granting the Defendant an extension of time
beyond the statutory 30 days to respond. See, Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772, 784 (2011);
Drayson v. Chubb. Nat. Insurance Company, 61 Conn. L. Rptr. 533, 2015 WL 9809791
(Conn. Super. Ct 2015) (attached).
WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that this court strike the Plaintiff’s Offer of
Compromise, dated April 26, 2024, or alternatively, grant the Defendant an additional 45 days
from the completion of the Plaintiff’s deposition (currently scheduled for May 31, 2024, the
4
date requested the deposition be compelled to take place by in the Defendant’s Motion to
Compel) to respond to the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise.
THE DEFENDANT
CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
By: //444085
Connor LeMay
Law Offices of Dennis J. Rinaldi
55 Capital Boulevard, Suite 202
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Telephone: 860-805-3119
E-Service Only: LOMSG.Htfd@allstate.com
Juris No. 444085
5
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on April 29,
2024, to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for
electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who
were electronically served:
Edmund Q. Collier, Esq.
Edmund Q. Collier Trial Lawyer LLC
50 Cherry St Ste 103
Milford, CT 06460
jdd@eqclaw.com
//444085
CONNOR LEMAY
Attorney at Law
6
Preview
NO. TTD-CV22-6026019-S : SUPERIOR COURT JEANNETTE PELLETIER : J.D. OF ROCKVILLE VS. : AT TOLLAND SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., ET : April 29, 2024 AL DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF COMPROMISE DATED APRIL 26, 2023 The Defendant, CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through the undersigned counsel, moves this Court to grant this Motion to strike the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise dated April 26, 2024. In the alternative, the Defendant moves this court to grant an extension of the time to respond to the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise up to and including 45 days from the completion of the Plaintiff’s deposition (currently scheduled for May 31, 2024). The reason for the Defendant’s request is that crucial discovery has not yet been made available to the Defendant to evaluate the claims being brought by the Plaintiff. The Defendant, despite multiple attempts, as not been given the opportunity to conduct a deposition of the Plaintiff, Jeannette Pelletier. The Defendant has attempted to do so on four sperate occasions (all of which cancelled by Plaintiff’s counsel). Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide necessary discovery related to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and disclosed that the Plaintiff had surgery, which they are attempting to claim was the result of the subject incident at issue in this case, only last month. For these reasons, if the Offer of Compromise is not stricken or, in the alternative, an extension is not given, then the Defendant will be in a position that eliminates the ability to make an informed decision as to settlement with the necessary discovery to evaluate the merits of resolving the claim for the amount offered. 1 The Plaintiff’s deposition was initially noticed by Defense counsel to take place on November 13, 2023. Notice of this deposition was properly sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on September 19, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled the deposition on November 8, 2023. The Plaintiff deposition was then scheduled by Defense counsel for February 13, 2024. Notice of this second deposition was properly sent by Defense counsel on January 12, 2024. The deposition was again cancelled by Plaintiff’s counsel on February 12, 2024. Defense counsel then noticed the Plaintiff’s deposition, for a third time, to be conducted on March 25, 2024 (a date provided to Defense counsel by Plaintiff’s counsel). Notice of this deposition was properly sent to Plaintiff’s attorney on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel, on February 29, 2024, requested the deposition be rescheduled to March 27, 2024. Defense counsel agreed and Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled for March 27, 2024. Proper notice was once again sent to Plaintiff’s counsel to reflect their requested change in date by Defense counsel on March 13, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel again, on March 26, 2024, marked off the Plaintiff’s deposition. Defense counsel then noticed the Plaintiff’s deposition for May 31, 2024. This deposition is currently scheduled to move forward. The Defendant has also filed a Motion to Compel the Plaintiff’s deposition to ensure that the deposition will be conducted timely and will not subsequently be cancelled again. Additionally, the lawsuit arises out injuries the Plaintiff claims to have suffered when ice fell from another vehicle and impacted her vehicle on February 22, 2021. In the Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Interrogatories and Production, interrogatory #7, the Plaintiff claimed to have been, “physically recovered in June of 2021.” Despite this claim that the Plaintiff was physically recovered in June of 2021 from her injuries, it was disclosed to Defense counsel that the Plaintiff had surgery on cervical spine in October of 2023 (a surgery which Plaintiff’s counsel claims is related to the February 22, 2021, loss). Defense counsel was not made aware of this fact until March 26, 2024. Notably, the scheduling order filed by agreement in this case (see Entry No. 118) stipulated that discovery would be completed by 2 February 1, 2024, nearly two months before this surgery was ever disclosed by Plaintiff’s counsel. This surgery was not disclosed at any point prior to March 26, 2024 (despite notice of the Plaintiff’s deposition being first sent in November of 2023) and the Defendant had no way of knowing that the Plaintiff would be claiming a surgery that took place over two years after she claimed to have fully recovered from her injuries. The Defense had no reason to believe that any treatment sought after June of 2021 would be later claimed in this lawsuit or that records for subsequent treatment would need to be requested. In response to learning of the Plaintiff’s surgery, Defense counsel filed a motion for Order of Compliance (see Entry No. 123) to attempt to evaluate the merits of these injuries, to determine if they are casually related to the February 22, 2021, loss and allow for the defendant to properly evaluate the case. The Defendant’s motion was granted by this court on April 15, 2024 (see Entry No. 123.10). Compliance of which was ordered within fourteen days of the order. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a Notice of Compliance (see Entry No. 124) on April 17, 2024, stipulating to documents provided. Next, a Motion for Extension of Time Re Discovery Motion or Request (see Entry No. 125) was filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on April 17, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a second Notice of Compliance (see Entry No. 126) which outlines additional documentation that was provided. Notably, records from Trinity Health of New England and Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Hospital have not yet been provided by Plaintiff’s counsel. While not having fully complied with the Defendant’s Motion of Order of Compliance dated April 1, 2024 (see Entry No. 123), Plaintiff’s counsel filed an Offer of Compromise (see Entry No. 127) on April 26, 2024. This Court has broad authority to impose reasonable bounds and order on discovery in civil actions. Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-14(a). “The Court's rule-making and sanctioning authority encompasses the power to strike an offer of compromise from the record …. This sanction is not specifically mentioned in Practice Book § 13-14, but it falls well 3 within the ambit of judicial power contemplated by both the court's inherent authority and the rules of practice.” Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772, 795 (2011). “The purpose of § 52-192a is to encourage pretrial settlements and, consequently, to conserve judicial resources. . .. The strong public policy favoring the pretrial resolution of disputes . . . is substantially furthered by encouraging defendants to accept reasonable offers of judgment." This rule helps to ensure that defendants have sufficient opportunity to gather the information needed to make a reasoned decision whether to accept a settlement offer. If a plaintiff deprives a defendant of material information sought through the discovery process, the benefits of the statutory waiting period vanish: based on a distorted view of the case arising from limited information or misinformation, the defendant may reject a reasonable offer of compromise or accept an unduly high offer. By striking offers of compromise, where the facts so warrant, the trial court can both enforce compliance with discovery obligations and advance the policy goal expressed in § 52-192a by facilitating reasonable settlement of litigation.” Id. 800-01. Given the above, allowing the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise to remain in effect will unfairly prejudice the Defendant by forcing it to make an uninformed decision as to settlement without the opportunity to conduct discovery necessary to evaluate the merits of resolving the claim for the amount offered. This reasoning constitutes either striking Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise or, alternatively, granting the Defendant an extension of time beyond the statutory 30 days to respond. See, Yeager v. Alvarez, 302 Conn. 772, 784 (2011); Drayson v. Chubb. Nat. Insurance Company, 61 Conn. L. Rptr. 533, 2015 WL 9809791 (Conn. Super. Ct 2015) (attached). WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that this court strike the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise, dated April 26, 2024, or alternatively, grant the Defendant an additional 45 days from the completion of the Plaintiff’s deposition (currently scheduled for May 31, 2024, the 4 date requested the deposition be compelled to take place by in the Defendant’s Motion to Compel) to respond to the Plaintiff’s Offer of Compromise. THE DEFENDANT CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY By: //444085 Connor LeMay Law Offices of Dennis J. Rinaldi 55 Capital Boulevard, Suite 202 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Telephone: 860-805-3119 E-Service Only: LOMSG.Htfd@allstate.com Juris No. 444085 5 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on April 29, 2024, to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were electronically served: Edmund Q. Collier, Esq. Edmund Q. Collier Trial Lawyer LLC 50 Cherry St Ste 103 Milford, CT 06460 jdd@eqclaw.com //444085 CONNOR LEMAY Attorney at Law 6