Case Background
On August 3, 2020, a quiet afternoon in Litchfield turned into a life-changing day for Danielle Bottass. She drove her 2019 Toyota Camry north on Route 254, approaching the intersection with Route 118. At the same moment, Nicholas Nozzolillo drove a Ford F-150 pickup east on Route 118.
Bottass stopped her car at the intersection, checked both ways, and then attempted to proceed behind a vehicle preparing to turn left. In those few seconds, Nozzolillo came from her left at high speed and slammed into her Camry. The force of the crash left Bottass with catastrophic injuries.
What made the ordeal worse was that Nozzolillo carried no insurance. Because of that, Bottass turned to her parents’ policy with United Ohio Insurance Company. The policy included uninsured motorist coverage, designed for exactly these situations. When she filed her claim, the company refused payment. Bottass filed suit, claiming her insurer failed to honor its obligations under the policy.
The case moved slowly through pleadings, special defenses, and discovery. In December 2024, after more than four years, a jury in Waterbury delivered its verdict.
Cause
Bottass based her lawsuit on negligence. She argued that Nozzolillo drove recklessly, speeding through an intersection, ignoring traffic conditions, and failing to brake or swerve in time. Since he was uninsured, her claim targeted United Ohio Insurance Company for uninsured motorist benefits.
The insurer denied responsibility, arguing both that Nozzolillo was not entirely at fault and that Bottass herself contributed to the crash.
Injury
The injuries from the crash were extensive and severe. Medical records showed that Bottass suffered:
Collapsed lungs with internal bleeding
Multiple rib fractures
A broken clavicle, tibia, fibula, and ankle
Serious fractures in her spine and pelvis
Lacerations to her shin, calf, vaginal wall, and bladder
Grade 3–4 liver laceration and grade 4–5 spleen laceration
Kidney damage, post-concussive syndrome, and deep scarring.
She required blood transfusions, several surgeries, extensive scans, and a long hospital stay followed by inpatient rehabilitation. Doctors concluded many of her injuries were permanent, meaning future care and possible surgeries would always remain part of her life.
Damages
Bottass claimed she spent enormous sums on emergency care, surgery, rehab, and therapy. She lost wages because her injuries kept her from working. She also claimed pain, emotional distress, and the loss of her ability to enjoy daily activities.
The complaint stressed that her damages went far beyond $15,000, the jurisdictional minimum. In closing arguments, her attorneys described lifelong costs and pain, pushing for compensation that matched the scale of her losses.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Danielle Bottass
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Richard P. Renehan
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Michael A. Cei | Kevin A. Rider | Stephen Davis | Hanbing Zhou
Defendant(s): United Ohio Insurance Company
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Maury M. Garrett | Lawrence H. Adler
· Experts for Defendant(s): Daniel Wolfe
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Claims
Danielle Bottass’s legal team pointed directly to Nozzolillo’s driving. They argued that he violated multiple traffic statutes by speeding, failing to yield, and ignoring the right of way. They stressed that his recklessness left Bottass with devastating injuries that permanently altered her life.
They reminded the jury that uninsured motorist coverage existed to protect policyholders when a driver like Nozzolillo had no insurance. Since her parents had paid premiums and kept the policy active, United Ohio was contractually bound to cover the damages.
Defense’s Position
The defense, representing United Ohio Insurance Company, did not dispute that the accident occurred. Instead, they claimed Bottass bore responsibility. Their special defenses argued she failed to yield, tried to turn left into traffic without a clear view, and ignored oncoming vehicles. They contended her own negligence either caused or contributed to the collision.
They also pointed out that Connecticut law allowed for comparative negligence, which meant Bottass’s recovery could be reduced if she shared fault.
Jury Verdict
On December 19, 2024, after hearing all evidence, the jury ruled for Danielle Bottass. They found United Ohio Insurance Company liable for 85% of the damages. They assigned 15% of the responsibility to Bottass herself.
The jury awarded $2,000,000 in total damages, which included $400,000 in economic damages and $1,600,000 in noneconomic damages. After applying the 85% responsibility to the insurer, Bottass’s the final amount awarded was $1,700,000.
This verdict marked a major win for Bottass, who spent more than four years fighting for benefits she believed her insurance company owed. The decision underscored how Connecticut juries can apply comparative negligence while still holding insurers to their coverage obligations.
