Welcome to Pedersen & Stewart, LLC

A Tort and Insurance Practice Firm dedicated exclusively to Litigation and Resolution of Civil Matters in State, Federal, and Administrative forums, whether as Advocate or Arbitrator, Trial Counsel, or Mediator.

CALL US Contact Us

Attorney Profiles


Lloyd Pedersen and Catherine Stewart first began practicing together in 1999 and formed their own firm in 2003.


Attorney Pedersen has been handling civil litigation since 1985. Attorney Stewart began her career as a clerk to the Appellate Court of Connecticut in 1994 and entered private practice in 1995.


They are joined by Laurie Seger, who serves as legal assistant for the practice.

Read More

Practice Areas


 

Read More

Connecticut Tort & Insurance Practice Update

Connecticut Jury Trials
By Lloyd Pedersen 19 Apr, 2021
As of April 12, 2021 Connecticut's Superior Courts have suspended jury trials through May 31, 2021.
By Lloyd Pedersen 10 Mar, 2021
On March 3, 2021 the General Assembly’s House Judiciary Committee convened a public hearing on H.B. 6465, an act designed to undo the December, 2016 Supreme Court of Connecticut holding in Marciano v. Jimenez. The Marciano court, interpreting Connecticut’s collateral source statute (C.G.S. §52-225a – specifically its language qualifying a defendant’s right to a collateral source deduction by declaring “. . . there shall be no reduction for (A) a collateral source for which a right of subrogation exists . . .”) held that if a third-party payor (a group health provider, or Medicare, eg.,) was asserting a lien against an underlying recovery, no corresponding collateral source reduction could be had – even if that payor had adjusted the underlying medical bills downward and the subrogation or lien amount being pursued was substantially less than the “on the board” medical bills claimed and subsequently awarded by the jury. The effect of Marciano was to allow a claimant to recover of the tortfeasor, without diminution, the dollar value of medical bills rendered by providers, even if those bills were not actually paid by or on behalf of the claimant. This legislation is designed to reverse that holding, specifically contemplating that there will be no collateral source reduction “for the amount (A) subject to a right of subrogation (B) agreed upon in full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, (c) to which a right of subrogation has not been waived, limited or extinguished, or (D) of collateral sources equal to the reduction in the claimant’s economic damages attributable to the claimant’s percentage of negligence pursuant to section 52-572h.” It remains to be seen whether the bill will emerge from House committee and whether a version will be taken up in the Senate as well.
Share by: