Kalon is new but our attorneys are not. Here is a sample of their representative cases:
Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Associates, LLC, District Court of Connecticut. 3:2013cv01537 (2016). Attorney Kriesen prevailed on a renewed motion for judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff insurer claimed the defendant independent adjuster negligently failed to name a mortgagee on a property settlement check, resulting in a $1 million damages payment by the plaintiff insurer to the mortgagee. Attorney Kriesen moved for judgment on the ground the claim was time-barred, but the court held there were issues of fact, and the case asserting there was no equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under the facts at trial and that the claim was time-barred. The trial court agreed, vacated the verdict, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.
Horrigan v. Town of Washington, 144 Conn.App. 536, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 939 (2013). Attorney Kriesen successfully defended an appeal brought by one of the premier plaintiff’s personal injury firms in Connecticut. At trial, the plaintiff claimed, pursuant to the highway defect statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13a-149, that an open storm drain was a defect and the sole proximate cause of the death of the minor decedent. After the jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, the plaintiff appealed. The case was transferred to Attorney Kriesen to defend the appeal. The primary claim on appeal was that the jury’s finding was clearly erroneous, requiring a review of the entire trial record. The court unanimously agreed with Attorney Kriesen’s argument that certain evidence supported a jury reasonably finding the open drain was not a defect, concluded that finding was dispositive, and did not address the plaintiff’s secondary claims. The Supreme Court denied review.
Sports Domain v. Max Specialty Group, et al., NNH-CV09-5025291-S (2011). Attorney Kriesen won a defendant’s verdict for his client (James River Insurance Company) on a coverage claim tried to the court. The parties stipulated to the value of damages ($400,000). The plaintiff suffered a property loss to its sports dome following a snowstorm, a deflation of the dome, and a reinflation, followed by a full-length rip in the dome. The events occurred during the end of one policy period and the beginning of another. Attorney Kriesen successfully argued that, given the evidence and the language of the policies, the loss was not covered by his client’s policy.
Giglio v. American Economy Ins. Co., 278 Conn. 794 (2006). Attorney Kriesen successfully defended an appeal challenging the validity of an exclusion in a uninsured motorist policy.
Attorney Kriesen has tried numerous jury trials to verdict, with many outright defendants’ verdicts. His success arises from his effective method of jury selection, preparation, and strategic execution of his trial plan. He weaves the facts and law of each case into a compelling story.
Traylor v. Gambrell, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. X08-FST-CV-14-5015414-S (Sept. 2, 2016) (summary judgment granted in favor of municipality on doctrine of res judicata).
Weed v. State of Connecticut, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. KNL-CV-15-6024544-S (March 21, 2017) (motion to strike all counts against municipality granted based on doctrine of governmental immunity).
Freiman-Mills v. Town of Windsor Locks, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-14-6054005-S (March 30, 2017) (partial summary judgment granted in favor of municipality under doctrine of governmental immunity).
Hines v. Metropolitan, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6059947-S (May 22, 2017) (summary judgment granted in favor of insurer holding interpretation of policy exclusion was valid and substantially congruent with regulatory language).
**Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.