New England States

Delay of two years and lack of evidence do not prevent recovery.

Leaky windows and doors were the subject of a suspended two year investigation after the insured failed to independently resolve a claim with the builder. The Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman received a “new” assignment for damages related to an alleged construction defect almost two years after the loss occurred.

After receiving the loss, the Stutman firm learned that no investigation had ever taken place and no evidence from the alleged defect remained. Complicating matters even more was the fact that no one could agree that a defect ever existed. Though the insured claimed there was one, they were unable to describe, with any specificity, the nature of the defect.

Despite substantial obstacles, the Stutman firm was able to assemble the right team of experts and begin the task of systematically eliminating all possibilities until only one remained. The investigation was so convincing that the defendants changed their position in writing from “eager to defend” to “eager to settle”. Two years after the loss occurred and with no physical evidence remaining, the Stutman firm recovered over 60% of paid damages without taking the matter to suit.

Testimony is key in partial recovery of “cold case”.

The Stutman firm recovered 60% RCV in a case that arose out of a fire inside of a mill complex in Connecticut. The fire was deemed undetermined by state officials, the ATF, and the insurer’s first fire investigator. This case was pulled from another subrogation firm and sent to the Stutman firm almost one year after the fire. The Stutman firm ultimately filed suit against contractors working inside the mill after obtaining witness statements from the ATF and State Police files. The firm was able to establish through deposition testimony that the workers were smoking in the mill on the day of the fire and utilized a demolition saw that spewed sparks onto combustible materials. The case settled after several years of litigation and numerous depositions for several hundred thousand dollars.

Waiver of subrogation no bar to pursuit of careless smoker.

A multi-story retirement residence for senior citizens located in Connecticut sustained significant fire and water damage when a resident’s relative extinguished a cigarette in a potted plant on an exterior balcony. The Stutman team filed suit against several contractors involved in the design and construction of the building. Despite the existence of a waiver of subrogation and other contractual bars, Stutman attorneys obtained a major six-figure settlement in an early mediation, before a single deposition was taken.

Co-insured rule doesn’t always bar recovery.

A ten-unit apartment building in Massachusetts sustained heavy damages as a result of a fire that involved a tenant’s use of a charcoal grill on the back deck of her apartment. Massachusetts follows the co-insured rule, also known as the “Sutton Rule,” which bars a landlord’s subrogating carrier from pursuing a fire damage claim against a tenant. However, the Stutman firm's investigation revealed that, after the tenant was done cooking, her boyfriend emptied the coals into a paper bag, and placed the still-hot coals into a small shed attached to the apartment building. In litigation, we were able to prove that the fire occurred as a result of the negligence of the tenant’s boyfriend, and that as a non-resident of the apartment building, he was not protected by the co-insured rule. The Stutman firm ultimately recovered $300,000 from the boyfriend’s homeowner’s insurance carrier.

”Act of God” no defense for flood loss.

A cargo container, awaiting delivery from Massachusetts to the insured, was placed on the ground inside a rail yard. Due to severe flooding, the cargo container and contents were destroyed. Stutman attorneys battled the “act of God” defense through aggressive investigation and discovery. Faced with the fact that this was one of the most severe storms to hit the rail yard in years, Stutman’s investigation revealed that the rail yard had a history of flooding during less severe storms. The rail yard owners had complained to the city about flooding problems previously and also knew of the impending weather and flooding, which was forecasted several days in advance. The case was settled prior to trial for a confidential amount.