Rohan v. Rosenblatt
Connecticut Superior Court
25 Conn. L. Rptr. 287 (unpublished), 1999 WL 643501 (1999)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
The wife of police officer Jeffrey Rohan (plaintiff) was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer less than a month after applying for a life-insurance policy and died a month after the policy was issued. Rohan was the beneficiary of the policy and retained attorney Leon Rosenblatt (defendant) to collect the proceeds. Although the insurance company had not indicated it would resist Rohan’s claim, Rosenblatt told Rohan that he believed “horrendous” litigation would be necessary to collect the proceeds because of the timing of Rohan’s wife’s application, cancer diagnosis, and death. Rohan wanted, but could not afford, to pay an hourly fee. Rosenblatt and Rohan agreed that Rohan would pay Rosenblatt a one-third contingency fee; they did not discuss what the fee would be if the insurance company paid the claim without litigation. The insurance company promptly paid the proceeds directly to Rohan without the need for litigation. Rohan advised Rosenblatt the claim had been paid, asked Rosenblatt about the fee, and, pursuant to the agreement, paid Rosenblatt one-third of the proceeds. Rohan subsequently contacted the insurance company to find out how much work Rosenblatt had done and retained a new attorney to recover the alleged unreasonable and excessive contingent fee paid to Rosenblatt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vertefeuille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
