Tracy L. Montalbano: Lawyer with Halloran & Sage LLP

Tracy L. Montalbano

Hartford,  CT  U.S.A.

Peer Rating

Client Rating

Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials

Practice Areas

  • Insurance
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
University University of Connecticut, B.A., Psychology, magna cum laude, 2000
Law SchoolUniversity of Connecticut School of Law, J.D., 2003
Admitted2003, Connecticut; 2004, District of Connecticut; 2006, Second Circuit Court of Appeals; 2011, Massachusetts


Connecticut Bar Association
New London Bar Association

BornBethpage, New York, October 11, 1978

Tracy Montalbano is a member of the Firm's Insurance and Litigation Practice Groups. Tracy's practice focuses on insurance coverage litigation and business litigation, including cases involving complex contractual and extra-contractual claims. In addition, she also defends insurance agents pursuant to errors & omissions liability policies. Based upon her experience, she routinely provides coverage advice to insurance company clients.

Prior to joining Halloran & Sage, Tracy worked for a small litigation firm where she obtained significant litigation experience in a wide range of personal injury actions, including motor vehicle, wrongful death and medical malpractice cases.

Connecticut Court Finds No Coverage for Eminent Domain Action
Insurance Law Update, 04/25/2014

Tracy Montalbano and Brian Rich named CLT New Leaders in the Law


Halloran & Sage Insurance Law Group member Tracy L. Montalbano provided insight to NBC Connecticut's Troubleshooters, as they explored the accident rate of snow tubing at the Woodbury Ski Area.

Free Time

Tracy Montalbano is a dedicated runner, having completed 3 marathons, 8 half marathons and many other races. Tracy has combined her love for running with a commitment to the American Cancer Society and has raised thousands of dollars in connection with its DetermiNation initiative.

In addition to running, Tracy is also an avid equestrian and has competed in horse shows in Connecticut, Vermont and Florida over the last five years on her horse, Mister October.

Reported CasesRepresentative Matter: Summary Judgment Obtained in Dram Shop Coverage Matter: Montpelier Insurance Company v. Boku, LLC, et al.; In the matter of Montpelier Insurance Company v. Boku, LLC, et al., Halloran & Sage obtained summary judgment in favor of the firm's client, Montpelier U.S. Insurance Company ( Montpelier ) in a declaratory judgment action against its insureds, Boku, LLC ( Boku ), Renata Zak ( Zak ) and Enrique Figueroa ( Figueroa ), operators of a bar/restaurant in West Haven, Connecticut.; Montpelier insured the defendants, Boku, Zak, and Figueroa, under a commercial general liability policy (the Policy ). The defendant, Eric Jennings ( Jennings ), commenced an action against Montpelier's insureds for personal injuries he sustained, including multiple gunshot wounds, liver laceration, right interior-superior iliac spine fracture, right apical pneumothorax and pain and suffering. Jennings alleged that Boku, through its backers or permittees, Zak and Figueora, served alcoholic beverages to Hugh Suggs and Robert Gallishaw while each was intoxicated, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 30-102 (Dram Shop Act). Jennings alleges that as a result of their intoxication, Suggs and Gallishaw shot Jennings causing his personal injuries and damages.; Montpelier commenced a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Boku, Zak, or Figueroa as to third-party liability claims. Montpelier argued that the underlying complaint did not allege bodily injury caused by an occurrence, as that term was defined by the Policy. In addition, Montpelier sought a declaration that the Policy specifically excluded coverage based upon the assault and battery exclusion.; Montpelier ultimately moved for summary judgment on these grounds. The District Court concluded that the underlying complaint did not allege sufficient facts from which the court could conclude whether the shootings were accidental or intentional. The court further noted that there was evidence in the record that the shootings were intentional but constrained by the vagueness of the Complaint... the shooting could thus possibly fall within the scope of an ' occurrence' as defined by the Policy. Id. at *6.; Next, the District Court analyzed the assault and battery exclusion. This exclusion provided that there was no coverage for bodily injury or personal injury arising out of assault or battery or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts, including the failure to warn, train, or supervise, whether caused by at the instigation or direction of the insured, his employees, patrons, or any other person. Id. at *7. The District court concluded that, given the natural ordinary meaning of the exclusion, it is clear that the parties intended to exclude coverage for damages stemming from an assault and battery or any acts or omissions relating to the prevention or suppression of such assaults and batteries. In so holding, the District Court emphasized that the assault and battery endorsement clearly states this exclusion changes the policy and warns the insured that in consideration of the premium charge the enumerated exclusions ' shall apply to this policy.' Id. The District Court further noted that the assault and battery exclusions have been extensively litigated in Connecticut courts and are routinely held to be unambiguous. Id. at *9.; The District Court granted Montpelier's Motion for Summary Judgment. In so doing, the District Court rejected Jennings' argument that the expected or intended injury exclusion was ambiguous. Accordingly, Montpelier did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Boku, Zak or Figueroa in the underling action. Montpelier U.S. Insurance Company was represented by Steven B. Ryan and Tracy L. Montalbano. Appellate Court Rules on First Impression Case: Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 151 Conn. App. 213 (2014) (Slip. Op. June 24, 2014), MCS-90 Endorsement in Insured's Policy was Not Triggered and Insurer was Not Liable for Payment of Underlying Judgment; Halloran & Sage's insurance law group obtained an appellate victory in a case involving an issue of First Impression in Connecticut. In Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 151 Conn. App. 213 (Slip. Op. June 24, 2014), the Appellate Court held that an insurer did not have an obligation to pay an underlying judgment against its insured. Specifically, the Appellate Court held that the MCS-90 Endorsement appended to the policy issued by the insurer was not triggered since the insured's vehicle, which was not listed on the insurance policy, was not being operated as a for-hire motor carrier at the time of the accident. In so holding, the Appellate Court applied the trip-specific approach, which the majority of courts have adhered to when determining the applicability of the MCS-90 Endorsement. On that basis, the Appellate Court ruled in favor of Halloran & Sage's client, Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company, on its alternate ground for affirmance.; Currently, certification has been granted in this case and the Connecticut Supreme Court will be reviewing the decision.; For more information contact: Tracy L. Montalbano Perkins v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 2013 WL 951373 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. of Ansonia-Milford, February 13, 2013 (Matasavage, J.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurer-client in a lawsuit involving contractual and extra-contractual claims stemming from an assault at a bar. Northeast Utilities Serv. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 3:08-CV-01673 CSH, 2012 WL 2872810 (D. Conn. July 12, 2012); Successfully defended an excess insurer in lawsuit alleging a breach of the duties to defend and indemnify. Trez v. International Water Safety Foundation, et al., Docket No. FST-CV08-5008779-S, Memorandum of Decision, dated December 9, 2010 (Mottolese, J.); Obtained favorable verdict following a court-side trial in an action against an insurance agent and agency. Harris v. Hermitage, 2009 WL 3740666 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, October 13, 2009) (Aurigemma, J.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurer-client in a lawsuit involving contractual and extra-contractual claims stemming from an assault at a bar. Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 2010 WL 4885340 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. of New Britain, Nov. 3, 2010)(Young, J.) Cotoia v. Holmgren, 2005 WL 3624576 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. of New London, Dec. 15, 2005) (Jones, J.)
Profile Visibility
#330 in weekly profile views out of 4,400 lawyers in Hartford, Connecticut
#100,525 in weekly profile views out of 1,726,728 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Tracy L. Montalbano

225 Asylum Street
HartfordCT 06103


Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now