Article ID: 7dcde7a484f1b070da98ceace8a37a2708d8fd4518d81bf581249b5410320c95
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/connecticut-appeals-court-tosses-42m-award-over-warehouse-injury/
Body Text
Connecticut appeals court tosses $42M award over warehouse injury - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Connecticut appeals court tosses $42M award over warehouse injury by Louise Esola Claims Disputes , Workers Comp Coverage , Workplace Safety Jun 1, 2026 A Connecticut appellate court overturned a nearly $42 million judgment against a lighting products company, ruling it did not owe a duty of care to a warehouse worker who was paralyzed after a 1,300-pound load of lights fell from a storage rack, in a ruling set to be made official Tuesday. The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of Juan Cruz and his wife, Emily Cruz, in Cruz v. Spec Personnel LLC, finding that Signify North America Corp. could not reasonably have foreseen the workplace accident that occurred several days after the product was delivered. Mr. Cruz was working at a Rexel USA Inc. warehouse in Hartford in 2017 when a temporary worker operating a reach truck struck a pallet of lights stored on an upper rack. The lights, which weighed about 1,300 pounds, slid off the pallet and fell on Mr. Cruz, causing severe injuries that left him paraplegic, according to the ruling. A jury found Signify negligent and found the plaintiffs’ economic and noneconomic damages totaled $100 million. It apportioned 90% of the negligence to Signify and 10% to the temporary worker, resulting in a $90 million award against Signify. The trial court later reduced the damages to about $41.9 million, plus interest. Signify appealed, arguing that any duty it had as a shipper was limited to securing products for transportation and did not extend to a warehouse accident five days after delivery, after Rexel had accepted and stored the product. The appellate court agreed. While the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Signify failed to stretch-wrap the lights to the pallet, it held that Mr. Cruz’s injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that failure. The court said the accident depended on subsequent conduct by Rexel, which accepted the delivery and placed the unsecured load on an upper storage rack, and by the temporary worker whose operation of the reach truck contributed to the lights falling. The appellate court said extending liability to Signify under those circumstances would rely on hindsight rather than reasonable foreseeability. The court remanded the case with direction to grant Signify’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and enter judgment for the company. Related News Wedding bells, vendor hells June 1, 2026 Gallagher Re announces program solutions leadership changes June 1, 2026 Bill to study undue delays in first responder claims heads to governor June 1, 2026 IAG reaches settlement in Greensill litigation June 1, 2026 Property and casualty market stabilizes after rate hikes: Report June 1, 2026 German specialist broker launches with private equity firm backing June 1, 2026 Aspen posts quarterly loss June 1, 2026 MS&AD appoints global CRO June 1, 2026 Mapfre targets Europe to grow its specialized markets business June 1, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 14.05
}