Corey v. Loomis
A prejudgment remedy attachment can be granted to a plaintiff, even if the defendant's property would be protected from attachment by the homestead exemption. In June 2010, Andrew Corey, who worked at United Technologies, argued with his roommate, Kelly Loomis, when they went to visit a friend. Allegedly, Loomis blocked his exit and, when Corey sat in the window of the room on the second floor, Loomis pushed Corey, who fell out the window. Corey had a broken tibia and underwent surgical procedures. He required an operation to drain a wound that became infected and doctors prescribed four pain killers, which included OxyContin and dilaudid. He required another operation to fuse his ankle. He wore bi-lateral leg casts and required extensive physical therapy. After six months of recovery, he returned to work and was unable to work as much overtime as previously. It appears likely he will be rated with permanent partial disabilities. His medical expenses were $220,435. Corey sued and requested a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $475,000. A court can grant a prejudgment remedy application if, taking into account defenses, countervailing claims, set offs, exemptions and insurance, probable cause exists that judgment will be issued to the applicant on the merits at trial. Although the defendant has a homeowner's insurance policy, the insurer has denied coverage, because the defendant's alleged conduct was intentional. The defendant argued that the property she owns has approximately $44,000 in equity, and she is entitled to a homestead exemption, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-352(b)t, of $75,000. The plaintiff objected that the homestead exemption only protects the defendant's property from execution pursuant to a judgment lien filed after a judgment enters. The court found that granting the plaintiff a prejudgment remedy attachment would not interfere with the defendant's enjoyment of the property. "[C]ontrary to the defendant's argument," wrote the court, "§52-278d contains no prohibition against attaching exempt property." The plaintiff established probable cause that a judgment will be granted to the plaintiff on the merits at trial. The court granted the plaintiff's request for a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $475,000.