- Litigation & Dispute Resolution
|University ||Columbia University, B.A., 1995|
|Law School||University of Connecticut School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1999|
|Admitted||1999, Connecticut; 2000, New York; 2000, District of Connecticut; 2002, U.S. Supreme Court; 2003, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals|
Connecticut Bar Association- Awards
Task Force on Lawyer Mentoring
Standing Committee on Long
American Law Institue
Board of Governors of Community
Partners in Action
|Born||Hartford, Connecticut, November 16, 1973|
Daniel Krisch is a leading appellate advocate and skilled trial practitioner who represents a wide variety of corporate, institutional and individual clients during all stages of litigation. Prior to joining the firm in 2012, Daniel was a partner at a boutique appellate firm in Hartford. He began his career in 1999 as law clerk to former Chief Justice Ellen Peters on the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Daniel has argued over fifty appeals before the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts, and has represented clients before the United States Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. His appeals have involved multi-million dollar tort verdicts, complex divorce cases, election disputes, serious criminal convictions and issues of constitutional law and fundamental rights. In 2008, while at his prior firm, Daniel won a reversal of a $41 million personal injury judgment against Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., the largest judgment reversed on appeal in Connecticut history. In addition, Daniel frequently assists trial counsel with raising, arguing and properly preserving potential appellate issues during trial and advises insurers about appellate issues during litigation involving their policyholders.
Daniel regularly represents companies, insurers and individuals in civil litigation in state and federal court. His trial practice includes complex tort, products liability and property cases. Daniel also counsels and represents candidates and interested individuals in election dispute cases and in proceedings before the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Daniel is AV-rated by the peer-reviewed legal directory Martindale-Hubbell and has been recognized since 2011 by The Best Lawyers in America in the categories of Appellate and Insurance Law. He is a co-author of The Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action and, from 2004-2011, co-authored the Connecticut Superior Court Civil Rules, Annotated, and the Connecticut Superior Court Juvenile Rules, Annotated. Daniel writes a bi-weekly column, “Dan K.'s Inferno,” in the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Daniel is an elected member of the American Law Institute and has taught moot court and appellate advocacy at the University of Connecticut School of Law. He has served as Assistant Secretary-Treasurer of the Connecticut Bar Association and chair of the CBA's Young Lawyers Section and as a member of the CBA's House of Delegates. Daniel is currently the Vice-Chair of Community Partners in Action, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to building a better community by providing services that promote accountability, dignity, and restoration for people affected by the criminal justice system.
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters; Appellate Court Holds that Insurer Does Not Need to Prove Prejudice if Insured Fails to Submit Proof of Loss; Halloran & Sage recently secured an important appellate victory for insurers in Palkimas v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 150 Conn. App. 655 (2014). In Palkimas, the Appellate Court held that an insurer does not have to prove prejudice if an insured fails to submit a sworn proof of loss in support of a claim for coverage. The Appellate Court distinguished Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 304 Conn. 179 (2012), in which the Supreme Court had reversed its own, decades-old precedent and held that the burden to prove prejudice from late notice of a claim is on the insurer. In Palkimas, the plaintiff (undisputedly) never provided a sworn proof of loss, which is a condition for coverage under his homeowner's policy. On that basis, the Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Halloran & Sage's client, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. For more information contact: Daniel J. Krisch; Daniel Krisch Wins Divorce Appeal; Daniel Krisch successfully defended a post-judgment modification of alimony on appeal to the Appellate Court on behalf of the plaintiff in Whitehead v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819, cert. denied, ___ Conn. ___ (2012). The trial court had granted the plaintiff's motion to extend her alimony beyond the time set in the original divorce judgment based on a substantial change in her circumstances. On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with Daniel that prior Supreme Court precedent did not preclude the trial court's decision and that the trial court correctly found that the plaintiff was entitled to the alimony modification. Daniel regularly represents parties in divorce appeals and advises trial counsel about appellate issued during divorce litigation. Whitehead v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819, cert. denied, ___ Conn. ___ (2012); Bysiewicz v. DiNardo, 298 Conn. 748 (2010); Perricone v. Perricone, 292 Conn. 187 (2009); Jackson v. Tohan, 113 Conn. App. 782, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 908 (2009); Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., 286 Conn. 563 (2008); Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505 (2007); State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (2007); McBurney v. Cirillo, 276 Conn. 782 (2006); State v. Miranda, 274 Conn. 727 (2005); Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (2004); Michaelis v. Michaelis, 81 Conn. App. 679 (2004); State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492 (2002); LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116 (2002)|
View Ratings & Reviews
|Profile Visibility |
|#128 in weekly profile views out of 4,232 lawyers in Hartford, Connecticut|
|#41,115 in weekly profile views out of 1,649,257 total lawyers Overall|