Jeffrey F. Gostyla

Bar / Professional Activity

• ALFA International Insurance Law Group, Member, 2018
• ALFA International Insurance Law Group, Member, 2019
• ALFA International Insurance Law Group, Member, 2020
• ALFA International Insurance Law Group, Member, 2022
• ALFA International Insurance Law Group, Member, 2021
• ALFA International Managing Partners Group, Member, 2021
• Elected to the Board of Directors, Hartford County (CT) Bar Association, 2022 

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• Successfully defended a petition to terminate guardianship for a young mother of a young boy. The case dragged on for years, long before my appointment. My client was on her own island. The State of Connecticut Department of Social Services, the court-appointed guardian (a non-family member, who wanted full guardianship rights), the maternal grandmother (who also wanted full guardianship rights), and other family members were prosecuting the petition. By taking a slow, methodical approach to reunite mother and child, the parties eventually agreed to a supervised visitation schedule, an agreement for caregiving, arrangements for book reading time, gift giving, etc. 2023
• Soria v. Necatera, et al., 2015 WL 9911485 (J.D. of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford)
• Amiel Dabush v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 2011 WL 3563137 (D. Conn. 2011), aff’d, Amiel Dabush v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 486 Fed. Appx. 962 (2d. Cir. 2012). Obtained summary judgment in favor of Guardian on the issue of whether the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Successfully established that the insurer's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, including evidence obtained from the plaintiff’s own physicians. Additionally, we convinced the court to reject the plaintiff’s claim that evidence from outside of the administrative record should be considered in reaching a decision on the motion. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiff’s appeal was without merit and thus affirmed the decision of the District Court, 2012.
• Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. El Rancho De Pancho, 985 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Conn. 2013)
• SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF INSURANCE COMPANY IN PROPERTY LOSS CLAIM In Ricardo Soria v. Marc R. Necatera, et al., 2015 WL 9911485 (Conn. Super Ct., J.D. of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford), the Court recently granted summary judgment in favor of Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company ("Mount Vernon") in connection with the plaintiffs’ property loss claim. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows. The plaintiff, Ricardo Soria, is the owner of Ace Green, LLC, a janitorial/maintenance company. The plaintiffs obtained a commercial general liability insurance policy from Mount Vernon for the policy period of February 1, 2011, through February 1, 2012. On February 18, 2011, Ace Green's employees cleaned a commercial "wall-to-wall" carpet at an office building in Greenwich, CT. The carpet ultimately shrank, and the landlord demanded payment to replace the carpet. The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to pay for the cost to replace the carpet when the landlord threatened the withholding of payments on three other buildings the plaintiffs serviced if the plaintiffs did not comply. The plaintiffs paid the landlord's demand and made a claim to Mount Vernon for coverage. Mount Vernon denied the claim, citing several policy exclusions. As a result of the denial, the plaintiffs filed suit claiming damages in the form of the cost to replace the carpet, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest on the loan to pay for the carpet. Additionally, Ace Green claimed that it was forced to cease operations as a result of Mount Vernon’s denial of coverage. The subject policy contained the following exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: j. Damage to Property (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired, or replaced because "your work" was incorrectly performed on it. Damage To Your Work: "Property damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard." This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor. The Court also found that "your work" is defined in the policy as including "work or operations performed by you or on your behalf." During discovery and depositions, the plaintiffs admitted that Ace Green’s employees incorrectly performed carpet cleaning work on the date in question and thus caused the damage to the carpet. However, in their briefs in opposition to Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued that there was "a genuine issue of material fact where defendant has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that plaintiffs' work was incorrectly performed on February 18, 2011, to support the insurance policy exclusion." The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument, stating that the plaintiffs' proffered interpretation of the policy would result in an insurer being a guarantor of the plaintiffs' work. The Court determined that was not the intent of the policy and concluded that coverage was barred based on the policy exclusion for damage to "that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired, or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it." "Soria, 2015 WL 9911485 at 4. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of Mount Vernon on the grounds that coverage was barred by the policy exclusion for "Damage To Your Work." Citing Capstone Building Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760, 808 (2013), a case relied upon by Mount Vernon, the Court held that "property damage resulting from the plaintiffs' own faulty work… is precluded from coverage by the ‘your work’ exclusion." Soria, 2015 WL 9911485 at 6-7. The Court noted that the fact the plaintiffs deny any wrongdoing misses the point because the issue is whether there is a claim that the plaintiffs did something wrong, for without a claim of negligence, there would be nothing that might even trigger an obligation for Mount Vernon to respond. Mount Vernon was represented by Jeffrey F. Gostyla, a partner in Halloran & Sage's insurance coverage department, in 2015.
• Estate of Selma Kovalik (Berlin Probate Court – PD08) A few years prior to her death, Selma Kovalik befriended Mary Ann Smolicz, a bank teller at a local bank. Eventually, Kovalik named Smolicz as her attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney and also changed her will so as to name Smolicz as her executrix. After Kovalik died, her grandchildren realized that her assets had been depleted at an alarming rate in the years leading up to her death. After being retained by Kovalik’s grandchildren, we successfully petitioned the Probate Court to remove Smolicz as executrix of Kovalik’s estate and appoint our client as administratrix, c.t. a. We also filed a petition for accounting regarding Smolicz’s actions as attorney-in-fact under the power of attorney. The Probate Court granted our petition for accounting, but Smolicz completely ignored the Probate Court’s Order. We filed a Motion for Contempt pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-33. The Probate Court denied our Motion for Contempt, holding that as a court of limited jurisdiction, it did not have the power to hold someone in contempt. We then filed suit against Smolicz in the Superior Court, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, statutory theft (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564), and unjust enrichment. See Sara Hernandez, Administratrix, c.t.a. of the Estate of Selma Kovalik v. Mary Ann Smolicz, New Britain Superior Court: Docket No. HHB-CV08-4016805-S. After Smolicz’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw, Smolicz proceeded pro se. Midway through the litigation, Smolicz mysteriously sent the sum of $15,000.00 to the Estate. Smolicz was ultimately defaulted for failure to plead, and the case proceeded to a hearing in damages. Following the hearing in damages, the Court (Pittman, J.) entered an award of damages in the amount of $536,765.00 in favor of our client and against Smolicz, calculated as follows: As to missing cash and accounts, $131,918.00, calculated as $146,918.00, less $15,000 that was paid over by Mary Ann Smolicz; and, as to missing personal property, $25,000.00. As part of its award, the court trebled our client’s damages as a result of Smolicz’s theft and awarded punitive damages equal to attorney’s fees. Smolicz died approximately six months after the court's ruling. Smolicz’s estate is currently pending in the Region 19 Probate Court. We successfully petitioned the Probate Court to allow our claim arising from the Superior Court’s award of damages. We also successfully petitioned to remove Smolicz’s children as fiduciaries of her estate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-242. To this day, we continue with our efforts to recover the monies that Smolicz misappropriated from Kovalik, 2012.
• Southport Congregational Church v. Hadley (Bridgeport Superior Court: Docket No. 12-CV-6029522), subsequently appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court under Docket No. AC 35289 and, thereafter, to the Connecticut Supreme Court under Docket No. SC 19398 with decision reported at 320 Conn. 103. Also pending is the Estate of Albert L. Hadley (Fairfield Probate Court – PD09). This case involved the Estate of Albert Hadley, who is generally regarded as America’s preeminent interior designer. Mr. Hadley, a resident of New York City, owned a country estate in Southport, CT. In his will, he devised the property to Southport Congregational Church. Prior to his death, however, he entered into a contract to sell the property to Evelyn Winn and executed a codicil/pledge to donate the proceeds from the sale to our client, Cheekwood Botanical Garden & Museum of Art. Mr. Hadley died after the execution of the contract but before the closing had occurred. Cheekwood claimed that the property transferred to Ms. Winn via the doctrine of equitable conversion. Southport Congregational claimed that equitable conversion didn’t apply because a mortgage contingency clause in the real estate contract was unsatisfied at the time of Mr. Hadley’s death. On January 6, 2016, after years of litigation, the Supreme Court held that the mortgage contingency clause did not preclude the application of equitable conversion following Mr. Hadley’s death. Southport Congregational Church v. Hadley, 320 Conn. 103 (2016).
• AN AGGRESSIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH LEADS TO WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY In Lafayette Capital Group, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., Docket No. DBD-CV12-6015882-S (Danbury Superior Court), the plaintiff was the owner of a commercial property known as One Gallows Hill Road, New Milford, CT. The plaintiff obtained a policy of insurance from Mount Vernon Insurance Company with effective dates of December 15, 2010, through December 15, 2011. The plaintiff claimed that on or about November 22, 2011, it suffered a vandalism loss to its property. The subject policy contained the following endorsement: VACANT BUILDING PROTECTION WARRANTY The insured acknowledges that this policy was issued based on the following representation and warranty. Furthermore, the insured agrees to maintain the following warranty for the entire term of the policy and any renewals thereof as a condition of coverage. In consideration of the payment of premium and the issuance of this policy by the company, the insured represents and warrants that: 1. All windows, doors, and passageways for ingress and egress to a building or portion of a building covered by this policy of insurance that is vacant or partially vacant are and shall remain fully secured and protected from all forms of unauthorized entry. On December 17, 2010, and February 24, 2011, Mount Vernon notified Lafayette Capital that it required an inspection of the subject property. The inspection, which was ultimately conducted on March 9, 2011, revealed that not all windows and doors were installed at the property. Indeed, the inspection revealed that there were two open bay doors and that approximately two-thirds of the 20,000 sq. ft. building was open for possible unauthorized entry. As a result of the inspection, on March 30, 2011, Mount Vernon sent a notice to the plaintiff, through which it required the plaintiff to comply with the following mandatory recommendation in order to avoid policy cancellation: “All doors and windows must be locked, secured, and/or boarded to help prevent unauthorized entry into the building.” On March 31, 2011, the plaintiff executed the mandatory recommendation document. However, the plaintiff took no steps to lock, secure, or board up the building. When the plaintiff presented its claim to Mount Vernon arising from the November 22, 2011 vandalism loss, Mount Vernon disclaimed coverage based upon the plaintiff’s violation of the Vacant Building Protection Warranty. Mount Vernon also relied upon a theft exclusion in disclaiming coverage. Through an aggressive discovery approach, which included a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain police reports concerning prior theft incidents at the subject property, Mount Vernon learned that the plaintiff had suffered prior vandalism losses at the property. This revelation created an entirely new set of issues in the case. When Lafayette Capital submitted its insurance policy application to Mount Vernon, it answered “none” in response to the following question: "Loss of information for the past 3 years." Lafayette Capital also provided no details concerning any losses “for the past 3 years.” In the application, Lafayette Capital answered “true” to the following question: “No property losses/claims incurred in the past 3 years (excluding closed no pay)." Additionally, Lafayette Capital answered “true” to the following question: “In the past 3 years, no more than 1 property loss (excluding closed no pay), no open claims, and no one loss over $10,000. "When confronted with these facts, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit against Mount Vernon and agreed that the policy should be rescinded based upon these statements in the application. Mount Vernon was represented by Jeffrey F. Gostyla, a partner in Halloran & Sage's insurance coverage department, in 2015.
• Matter of Leroy C. Ferguson and Verna W. Ferguson (Tobacco Valley Probate Court – PD37) This is a case involving the financial exploitation of senior citizens. After being appointed as conservator of estate for both respondents, an elderly couple from Bloomfield, it was discovered that their son misappropriated hundreds of U.S. Savings Bonds in the names of his parents and was redeeming them for his own personal financial gain. We have taken steps to bring this case to local law enforcement authorities, shut down bank accounts and credit cards, successfully petition for an accounting from the son who previously served as attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, and move for and obtain an order granting our motion for sanctions. More recently, we moved for permission to commence and prosecute a civil action against the son under Public Act 15-236. See Jeffrey F. Gostyla, Esq., Conservator of the Estate of Leroy C. Ferguson, Sr. and Verna W. Ferguson, Civ. Action No. 3:16-CV-00631-VAB (D. Conn), 2016.
• Estate of Ann L. Pasquale (Dist. of Hamden-Bethany – PD37) The decedent’s daughter and daughter-in-law made claims against the decedent’s estate seeking over $500,000.00 as compensation and reimbursement for caregiving services provided to the decedent from 2007 to the date of her death on November 2, 2014. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Probate Court issued a decree that concurred with our argument that services rendered by family members are presumed to be gratuitous and that the claimants failed to overcome that burden and presumption (2015).
• Joseph R. Mauro, Jr. v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 2011 WL 13060167 (D. Conn. 2011). The plaintiff claimed that Guardian improperly denied his claim for long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan maintained by the plaintiff’s employer. Guardian filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because the plaintiff failed to file suit against Guardian within the three-year suit limitation provisions set forth in the Plan. Guardian also argued that, even if the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, the plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract and violation of CUTPA/CUIPA were preempted by ERISA and thus failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The District Court granted Guardian’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to file suit within the three-year suit limitation provisions set forth in the Plan. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s request to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling, finding that Guardian made no misrepresentations to the plaintiff in 2011.
• SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF INSURANCE COMPANY IN $4.8 MILLION PROPERTY LOSS CLAIM: In Known Litigation Holdings, LLC v. Navigators Insurance Company, et al., 2016 WL 3566653 (D. Conn.), the U.S. District Court recently granted summary judgment in favor of Navigators Insurance Company, Navigators Management (UK) Ltd., and Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (collectively "Navigators") in connection with the plaintiff’s $4.8 million property loss claim. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows. In 2006, New England Cash Dispensing Systems, Inc. ("NECD"), an ATM services company, entered into a Courier Agreement with Domestic Bank, under which NECD was required to pick up cash owned by Domestic Bank from Mount Vernon Money Center, an armored car and cash management service, and transfer the money to Domestic Bank’s ATMs. The Courier Agreement additionally provided that NECD would maintain insurance for any losses of Domestic Bank's money and that such insurance would name Domestic Bank as a loss payee. In January of 2006, NECD and its affiliate, Integrated Merchant Systems, LLC ("IMS"), submitted an application for insurance to Navigators Insurance Company. In the application for insurance, as well as all subsequent renewal applications, NECD/IMS represented that they had suffered no losses in the past 6 years. In reliance upon these representations, Navigators issued policies of insurance to NECD/IMS for the period of 2006 through 2011. NECD’s representations regarding losses turned out to be completely false and fraudulent. Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2010, NECD/IMS sustained massive losses of cash in the ATM network as a result of a conspiracy to defraud Domestic Bank carried out by Joseph Sarlo, CEO of NECD/IMS, and at least three of his fellow officers, directors, and employees. Domestic Bank claimed that it did not learn of the scheme to defraud until February 2010, when it made a demand upon NECD/IMS for an accounting of ATM cash. Shortly thereafter, Sarlo and three other NECD/IMS employees were indicted for carrying out the scheme to defraud Domestic Bank, and each ultimately pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Domestic Bank submitted a claim to Navigators under the subject policies. Following an investigation, Navigators rescinded each of the policies issued to NECD/IMS on the grounds that the insureds made material misrepresentations regarding losses in the applications for insurance. KLH, a successor of Domestic Bank, then filed suit against Navigators. In ruling on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that "each of the policies of insurance issued by Navigators Insurance Company to NECD and IMS was properly rescinded due to the material misrepresentations made by NECD and IMS in the procurement of said policies of insurance." The Court ruled that "because such knowing misrepresentations constitute material misrepresentations and grounds for rescission as a matter of law, summary judgment in Navigators' favor is granted on [the plaintiff’s] breach of contract claim." The plaintiff also asserted a claim of promissory estoppel against Navigators, alleging that Domestic Bank relied upon representations made by Navigators’ agents that coverage would be available under the policies in instances involving losses from fraud or dishonesty by NECD’s employees. The Court rejected this claim on the grounds that the plaintiff may not use estoppel to expand insurance coverage beyond the express terms of the policy. The Court held that the plaintiff could not rely on promissory estoppel to claim that its losses, which resulted from acts and omissions of NECD/IMS's CEO, should have been covered. Therefore, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Navigators with respect to the plaintiff’s promissory estoppel count. Navigators was represented by Jeffrey F. Gostyla, a partner in Halloran & Sage's insurance coverage department, 2016.
• Gostyla, Admx. v. James A. Pettit (Hartford Superior Court: Docket No. HHD-CV16-5043167-S & HHD-CV17-6074354-S). After the Probate Court removed the Executor for financial mismanagement of the Estate, I was appointed Administrator, d.b.n., c.t.a. The Probate Court subsequently authorized me to take any action necessary to recover sums (approximately $150,000.00) that were ordered to be restored to the Estate by the removed fiduciary out of his own personal funds. After multiple demands, we were ultimately forced to file a civil action against the removed fiduciary in order to enforce the probate court orders and recover funds ordered to be restored to the estate. The Hartford Superior Court ultimately granted judgment in our favor and against the removed fiduciary in the amount of $178,858.21 and ordered treble damages based upon claims of statutory theft and conversion, for a total judgment of $536,574.63. The Court also ordered costs in the amount of $1,862.79 in 2020.
• Matter of Deborah Banks (Hartford Probate Court – PD01) Represented the mother of an intellectually challenged adult daughter. For many years, our client and her son served as plenary guardian and standby plenary guardian, respectively, for Deborah. For just as many years, our client battled fiercely with the State of Connecticut Department of Developmental Services ("DDS") and the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities ("OPA") regarding her daughter’s placement, treatment, and care. DDS/OPA raised unfounded claims of abuse and neglect against our client, which were investigated but ultimately rejected by law enforcement authorities. DDS/OPA then shifted their sights to getting our client and her son removed as guardians. They convinced the court-appointed attorney for Deborah to file a petition for removal of guardians. On June 3, 2010, DDS/OPA finally got their wish. On that date, the Probate Court issued a decree stating that, despite the fact that the Court "does not think the Mother [Patricia Sherman] has hit Deborah [Banks]," it would grant the relief requested in the application and suspend the plenary guardianship of our client and the standby plenary guardianship of her son. Our client filed an appeal from probate. We endured years of dilatory motion practice and discovery abuses. Sherman v. Kowalyshyn, et al., 2011 WL 803005 (Jan. 28, 2011); Sherman v. Kowalyshyn, et al., 2013 WL 2278974 (May 3, 2013). On May 22, 2014, the Superior Court (Wiese, J.) sustained our client’s appeal and vacated the underlying Probate Court Order concerning her removal. Sherman v. Kowalyshyn, et al., 2014 WL 3360693 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. of Hartford, May 22, 2014). In doing so, the Court noted that DDS/OPA did not submit any evidence in support of the petition for removal. Additionally, the Court found that Deborah Banks was not present at the June 3, 2010 probate hearing, and the Probate Court failed to make the required findings under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a–675 to justify her absence (2014).
• Lena Ferguson v. Leroy C. Ferguson, Jr., Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00631-VAB (D. Conn.). This was a case involving the financial exploitation of senior citizens. After being appointed as conservator of estate for both respondents, an elderly couple from Bloomfield, it was discovered that their son misappropriated hundreds of U.S. Savings Bonds in the names of his parents and was redeeming them for his own personal financial gain. We took steps to bring this case to local law enforcement authorities, shut down bank accounts and credit cards, successfully petition for an accounting from the son who previously served as attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, and move for and obtain an order granting our motion for sanctions against the son. We successfully moved for permission to commence and prosecute a civil action against the son under Public Act 15-236. We filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Court ultimately granted judgment in our favor and awarded $115,074.00 in recovery damages, $345,222.00 in punitive damages, and $42,848.72 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Court further granted our request for injunctive relief and issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining the defendant/son or anyone acting in concert or participating with him or on his behalf from redeeming any U.S. savings bonds in the name of and/or belonging to his parents. The Court further ordered the defendant/son to turn over all savings bonds in the name of or belonging to his parents. The Court ordered the defendant/son to cease acting as attorney-in-fact and imposed a constructive trust on any and all assets titled in the defendant/son’s name, up to the amount of $115,074.00, 2018.
• Cecunjanin, et al. v. Yankivskly, et al. (U.S.D.C. Case No. 3:19-cv-00419-VLB) Served as lead counsel for defendants in a tractor-trailer versus minivan accident, which resulted in the death of the driver of the minivan (plaintiff’s decedent). The plaintiffs alleged causes of action sounding in negligence and recklessness. After intensive discovery, the case settled prior to trial for an amount far less than half of the plaintiff’s demand. No judgment or findings were made by the District Court regarding the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence or recklessness, 2021.
• Marro v. APMEX, Inc. (Bridgeport Superior Court—Docket No. FBT-CV20-6101498-S) Served as lead/sole counsel for defendant APMEX, Inc., in a case involving the alleged failure to ship dozens of 2020 one-ounce Gold American Eagle coins to the plaintiff. Through aggressive motion practice and discovery, the case settled for an amount less than half of the plaintiff’s valuation and demand, 2022.
• Eric Veilleux v. Progressive Northwestern, Ins. Co., et al. (U.S.D.C. Case No. 3:16-cv-02116-MPS) Served as lead counsel for a case involving an accident in which the plaintiff sustained serious and potentially fatal injuries and damages (including, but not limited to, the loss of a leg above the knee, the loss of one testicle, permanent partial disability of the back, severe emotional distress, lost income, and lost earning capacity) after the aerial lift (in which the plaintiff was standing in a bucket loader) broke from its chain and pinned the plaintiff into a building. After nearly four years of litigation, which involved an aggressive approach to written discovery, depositions, a motion to dismiss, and cross-motions for summary judgment, the case settled on the eve of trial for an amount one-quarter of the plaintiff’s claimed damages and demand. The District Court also vacated prior rulings as to the defendants, 2021.
• Queen Zuri v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. (New Haven Superior Court – Docket No. NNH-CV19-6097874-S) Represented defendants/insurer in a commercial property loss involving damage to the property due to a burst water pipe. The plaintiff claimed losses to its business, including its property, use of facilities, and lost income. After nearly three years of litigation, the case settled on the eve of trial for an amount far less than the plaintiff’s demand, 2022.
• Olivia Bell v. Hatzlacha, LLC, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford at Milford: Docket No. AAN-CV-21-6041069-S. Represented the defendant, an American National Lloyd's insured, in a premises liability action involving allegedly defective stairs. Plaintiff's demand was originally in the six figures. Following an aggressive discovery/deposition strategy, the case settled for less than nuisance value, 2022.
• Hobson v. Kemper (U.S.D.C. Case No. 3:20-cv-00812-SALM) Served as lead counsel for defendant/insurer in a case involving property damage resulting from a microburst storm. The plaintiff alleged breach of the insurance contract, bad faith insurance practices, and unjust enrichment against the defendant/insurer. The case settled just prior to trial for an amount far less than the plaintiff’s demand. No judgment or findings were made by the District Court regarding the plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract, bad faith insurance practices, or unjust enrichment, 2022.
• Successfully negotiated a highly contentious Stock Purchase Agreement for a departing owner/stockholder who essentially formed and operated the corporation as it now exists. The Stock Purchase Agreement resulted in over a $5 million payout to the departing owner, among other benefits, 2024.
• Successfully litigated an OSHA claim involving multiple accusations against the employer/client. The case was settled on an order requiring no payment whatsoever and a consent order, OSHA v. A1 Home Improvement, 2024

Representative Clients

• The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Navigators Insurance Company, Navigators Management (UK) Ltd. Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Progressive Casualty Insurance Company American International Group Community Association Underwriters of America QBE Insurance Company, 2016.
• Represented State Farm Insurance and its affiliates in numerous cases litigated in the Connecticut State Courts and the U.S. District Court—District of Connecticut, 2001.
• Represented The Hartford and its affiliates in numerous cases litigated in the Connecticut State Courts, the U.S. District Court—District of Connecticut, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001.
• Represented AAA Insurance in numerous cases litigated in the Connecticut State Courts, 2022.
• Represented American National Lloyd's in numerous cases litigated in the Connecticut State Courts, 2021.
• Represented McDonald's Corporation in numerous cases litigated in the Connecticut State Courts, 2020.
• Connecticut Probate Courts Approved Counsel List (1994-present).

Pro bono / Community Service

• Berlin (CT) Lions Club, Member, 1994-2001
• Elected to Vestry of St. John’s Church, West Hartford, CT. Served as a Vestry Member, 2012-2015.
• President, Villanova University Alumni Association, Hartford/Central CT Chapter: 1995-2015, 2017-2019, 2022
• Elected to the Board of Trustees, YWCA of New Britain, CT. Served on the Board of Trustees, 2005-2009.
• Manafort Family Foundation – Golf Tournament Committee, 1996–2003
• Elected to Board of Directors of Timberlin Golf Club, Inc. Served as Secretary in 1995. Served as president from 1996 to 2003.
• Elected to Board of Directors - Berlin Chamber of Commerce. Served on the Board of Directors from 1996-1999
• Elected to Board of Trustees—Connecticut Episcopal Bishops Fund (served 2021 to present)

Educational Background

• Villanova University, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) - Political Science and Government, Activities and societies: Phi Gamma Delta, Rush Chairman - The International Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta, Villanova University Rugby Club, 1986-1990
• Quinnipiac University School of Law, Doctor of Law - JD, Law, Activities and societies: Editor in Chief - The Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal, 1993-1994. Member—The Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal, Captain - Quinnipiac University School of Law Rugby Club (3 years). Graduated cum laude in 1994. Published twice in the Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal, 1991-1994

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

• Demand Grows for Ivory Ban, 7 WASHINGTON REPORT ON AFRICA 54 (Aug. 1989), Author, Demand Grows for Ivory Ban, The Washington Report on Africa, International Law, 1989
• Guest Speaker—Berlin High School (Berlin, CT) Business Studies Forum, 2021
• Served as moderator at the 2022 ALFA International Insurance and Professional Liability Seminar—"The High Art of Marijuana Insurance Coverage Issues."
• Note published in The Connecticut Probate Law Journal, Author, The Needle or the Baby Spoon? Termination of the Parental Rights of a Drug-Dependent Mother in Connecticut, 7 CONN. PROB. L.J. 279 (1993)., The Connecticut Probate Law Journal, Probate Law, 1993
• Case Comment published in The Connecticut Probate Law Journal, Author, In re Baby Girl B.; Waiving Good-Bye to Little Megan Marie, 8 CONN. PROB. L.J. 119 (1993), The Connecticut Probate Law Journal, Probate Law, 1993

Other Outstanding Achievements

• The Connecticut Law Tribune “New Leaders of the Law” Award: Development of the Law (November 2003)
• Halloran Sage is pleased to announce that Jeffrey Gostyla has been named the firm’s new Managing Partner. Jeff looks forward to continuing the firm’s 86-year tradition of excellence. “Our talented attorneys and committed staff serve vital industries and innovative companies across the region. It is an honor to be the Managing Partner of Halloran Sage as we close in on almost 100 years of serving our community and providing outstanding legal service,” Jeff said. A Connecticut native, after attending Villanova University for his undergraduate career, Jeff returned to his home state to attend Quinnipiac University School of Law, graduating cum laude. He joined Halloran Sage in 2001 and, over his tenure, has established a prominent practice within the firm’s Litigation and Insurance groups—two pillars of the firm since its founding. Jeff is eager to continue moving the firm forward while respecting its past traditions: “Halloran Sage plays a vital role in the economy of Southern New England, and we will continue to provide our clients with the vigorous representation and superior responsiveness that they’ve come to expect from us" (2021).

Honors

• In September of 2021, at the age of 52, Jeff ran in a contested race for Managing Partner of Halloran Sage, an 87-attorney firm with 7 offices in the Northeast. In mid-October of 2021, Jeff was voted in as managing partner by his partners at Halloran Sage, becoming only the fifth managing partner in the firm’s 85-year history. Jeff served as Managing Partner from October 15, 2021 to June 27, 2022, Managing Partner - Halloran Sage, Halloran Sage, 2021
• The Connecticut Law Tribune “New Leaders of the Law” Award: Development of the Law (November 2003), The Connecticut Law Tribune, 2003
• Villanova University Alumni Association – Leadership Award, Villanova University, 2005
• Elected Editor-in-Chief of The Connecticut Probate Law Journal in 1993. Served as Editor-in-Chief from 1993 to 1994, Editor-in-Chief, Connecticut Probate Law Journal, The Connecticut Probate Law Journal, 1993

Industry Groups

• Criminal Defense Approved Panel Counsel.
• Insurance
• Probate Court Approved Counsel

“A litigator with over 30 years of experience in the state and federal courts. Previously nominated for Super Lawyers (”

“Smart, ethical and dedicated.”

“Almost 30 years of litigation experience in the state and federal courts. Only one of five attorneys elected to Managing Partner of Halloran Sage, a firm with approximately ninety attorneys, with seven offices in the northeast, founded in 1935.”