RETURN DATE: MAY7, 2024
`
`ISMAEL ELIROSA-ROJAS
`
`Vv.
`
`STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D, OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`MARCH18, 2024
`
`COMPLAINT.
`
`. On or about March 30, 2021, at approximately 10:30 p.m., the plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-
`
`Rojas, was operating a motor vehicle, westbound on Chapel Street at its intersection with
`
`York Street in New Haven, Connecticut.
`
`. At the same time and place, the tortfeasor, Ravi Kolla, was operating a motor vehicle
`
`northbound on York Street at
`
`its intersection with Chapel Street
`
`in New Haven,
`
`Connecticut.
`
`. At said time and place, as the plaintiff entered the intersection with a green traffic control
`
`signal, the tortfeasor, suddenly and without warning, disregarded a red traffic control
`
`signal, entered the intersection and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
`
`. The aforementioned collision was caused by the negligence of the tortfeasor, in one or
`
`more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`In that he failed to keep his automobile under reasonable and propercontrol;
`
`In that he failed to maintain a proper look out for other vehicles or conditions on
`the roadway or to pay attention to where he was heading;
`
`In that he failed to apply his brakes in timeorin a sufficient fashion so as to avoid
`the collision;
`
`In that he failed to sound his horn or to make any attempt whatsoever to give the
`Plaintiff a timely warning of the impendingcollision;
`
`e.
`
`In that he failed to turn his vehicle in order to avoid the collision;
`
`
`
`ISMAEL ELIROSA-ROJAS
`
`Vv.
`
`STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D, OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`MARCH18, 2024
`
`COMPLAINT.
`
`. On or about March 30, 2021, at approximately 10:30 p.m., the plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-
`
`Rojas, was operating a motor vehicle, westbound on Chapel Street at its intersection with
`
`York Street in New Haven, Connecticut.
`
`. At the same time and place, the tortfeasor, Ravi Kolla, was operating a motor vehicle
`
`northbound on York Street at
`
`its intersection with Chapel Street
`
`in New Haven,
`
`Connecticut.
`
`. At said time and place, as the plaintiff entered the intersection with a green traffic control
`
`signal, the tortfeasor, suddenly and without warning, disregarded a red traffic control
`
`signal, entered the intersection and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
`
`. The aforementioned collision was caused by the negligence of the tortfeasor, in one or
`
`more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`In that he failed to keep his automobile under reasonable and propercontrol;
`
`In that he failed to maintain a proper look out for other vehicles or conditions on
`the roadway or to pay attention to where he was heading;
`
`In that he failed to apply his brakes in timeorin a sufficient fashion so as to avoid
`the collision;
`
`In that he failed to sound his horn or to make any attempt whatsoever to give the
`Plaintiff a timely warning of the impendingcollision;
`
`e.
`
`In that he failed to turn his vehicle in order to avoid the collision;
`
`
`
`f.
`
`In that he failed to otherwise use proper precautions or measures to avoid the
`collision;
`
`g.
`
`In that he failed to remain awake andalert during his operation of said vehicle:
`
`h.
`
`In that he operated his motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than what was
`reasonable in light of the width, traffic and use of the highway in violation ofthe
`common law;
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`In that he operated his motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than what was
`reasonable in light of the width, traffic and use of the highway in violation of
`Connecticut General Statute Section 14-21 8a;
`
`In that hefailed to operate his motorvehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within
`a single lane oftravel and movedhervehicle from such lane when such movement
`could not be made with safety in violation ofthe common law;
`
`In that he failed to operate his motor vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within
`a single lane oftravel and moved hervehicle from such lane when such movement
`could not be madewith safety in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section
`14-236;
`
`I,
`
`In that he failed to yield the right of wayin violation of the common law;
`
`m. In that he failed to obey the red traffic control signal in violation of Connecticut
`General Statutes Section 14-299.
`
`5. Asa direct and proximateresult ofthe tortfeasor’s negligence,the Plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-
`
`Rojas, did suffer the following injuries and damages some or all of which may be
`
`permanent in nature:
`
`a. Cervical spine injury;
`
`b. Thoracic spine injury;
`
`c. Lumbar spine injury;
`
`
`
`d. Headaches;
`
`e. Radiculopathy;
`
`f. Associated physical pain and suffering.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the tortfeasor, the Plaintiff,
`
`Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, frustration and
`
`anxiety over the fact that he was and remains injured.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the tortfeasor, the Plaintiff,
`
`Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, has been forced to expend sums of money for medical care and
`
`treatment, medications and therapy and may be forced to incur additional sums in the
`
`future.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence ofthe tortfeasor, the Plaintiff,
`
`Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, has been limited in his ability to engage in his usual occupation as
`
`he had prior thereto and may be solimited in the future.
`
`As a further result of the tortfeasor’s negligence, the Plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, has
`
`been limited in his ability to enjoy and engage in all of life’s activities as he had prior
`
`thereto and may be so limited in the future.
`
`10.
`
`The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance
`
`company authorized to do business in the State of Connecticut, in 2021 it was in the
`
`business of entering into automobile insurance contracts with persons who own/or operate
`
`motor vehicles.
`
`11.
`
`Atall relevant times hereto, Ismael Elirosa-Rojas held an automobile insurance policy in
`
`which ail insurance premiums were paid in full and the policy wasin full force and effect
`
`
`
`as of the date of the plaintiff’s injury which included uninsured/underinsured motorist
`
`coverage.
`
`12. At all relevant times hereto, the plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, was a lawful insured under
`
`said policy with the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
`
`13. Atall relevant times hereto, the tortfeasor, Ravi Kolla, was underinsured and therefore was
`
`unable to fully compensate the Plaintiff for his injuries andlosses.
`
`14, At all relevant
`
`times hereto,
`
`the Plaintiff, Ismael Elirosa-Rojas, has exhausted the
`
`tortfeasor’s automobile liability policy.
`
`15. The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to make
`
`paymentto the Plaintiff pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 38a-336,
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE,the plaintiff claims:
`
`1. Compensatory damages;
`
`2.
`
`Suchotherreliefthe court deems appropriate.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`By:
`
`R.J. WEBER,III, ESQ.
`Weber & Rubano, LLC
`401 Center Street
`Wallingford, CT 06492
`Phone: (203) 626-9172
`Fax: (203) 626-9175
`Juris No.: 432211
`
`
`
`RETURN DATE: MAY7, 2024
`
`ISMAEL ELIROSA-ROJAS
`
`Vv.
`
`STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`:
`
`:
`
`‘
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`MARCH18, 2024
`
`STATEMENT OF AMOUNTIN DEMAND
`
`The plaintiff claims money damagesin excess of $15,000.00.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`By:
`
`RJ. WEBER,III, ESQ.
`Weber & Rubano, LLC
`401 Center Street
`Wallingford, CT 06492
`Phone: (203) 626-9172
`Fax:
`(203) 626-9175
`Juris No.: 432211
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
