Case Background
Kevin McSwiggan worked as both the owner and an employee of Rockwell Construction Incorporated, a business he operated in Connecticut. Before June 2017, McSwiggan sought out the O’Brien Insurance Agency to secure workers’ compensation insurance for his company. The agency successfully obtained a policy for the construction firm, which McSwiggan believed met the needs of his business.
On June 24, 2017, disaster struck when McSwiggan suffered a severe injury while performing his duties for Rockwell Construction. Shortly after the accident, in early July 2017, he reached out to the O’Brien Insurance Agency to confirm if he personally fell under the coverage of the policy they had procured. During this crucial inquiry, an agent or employee of the firm explicitly told McSwiggan that he was either not covered by or was exempted from the workers' compensation policy. Believing this professional advice to be accurate, McSwiggan did not file a claim at that time.
Two years later, in June 2019, a workers' compensation carrier conducted an audit of Rockwell Construction for the period that included the date of the accident. To McSwiggan’s surprise, the audit resulted in a bill that included a premium specifically for his own coverage. When he questioned the auditor about why he was included, the auditor explained that he was automatically deemed covered unless a specific document existed to exclude or exempt him. McSwiggan then circled back to the O'Brien Insurance Agency, where staff finally admitted that no such exclusion or exemption ever existed. By the time he discovered he had been covered all along, the legal timeframe to file for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act had already expired.
Cause
The legal dispute centered on the professional failures of the O’Brien Insurance Agency. McSwiggan alleged that the agency provided false information regarding his insurance status, which prevented him from accessing benefits he had paid for through his business. He argued that the agency's failure to review the actual policy before giving him advice constituted a breach of their professional duties.
Injury
The physical toll of the June 2017 accident was extensive and life-altering. McSwiggan suffered a broken pelvis and torn ligaments in his left leg. The incident also caused significant injuries to his right shoulder, right arm, and right wrist, along with back injuries. These medical issues required four days of acute hospital care and necessitated ongoing medical treatment for years. Furthermore, the severity of these injuries forced McSwiggan to remain out of work for approximately one and a half years.
Damages Sought
McSwiggan sought financial compensation for the benefits and monetary support he lost because he could not file a workers' compensation claim. His demand for relief included money damages exceeding $15,000, along with interest and the costs associated with the lawsuit.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Kevin McSwiggan
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kevin S. Coyne
Defendant(s): O’Brien Insurance Agency, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert J. Flanagan
· Experts for Defendant(s): Amado J. Vargas
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiff’s legal team presented four distinct legal theories to hold the insurance agency accountable for the lost benefits.
Negligence The primary claim focused on the agency’s basic failure to exercise reasonable care. The Plaintiff argued that the agents neglected their duty to review the Rockwell Construction policy properly. Because they told McSwiggan he lacked coverage without checking the paperwork, they failed to fulfill their professional obligation to advise him on the actual terms of the insurance they had placed for him.
Negligent Misrepresentation McSwiggan alleged that the agency made false statements about the insurance coverage when they should have known the truth. This claim emphasized that the agency provided incorrect information regarding his status, and because McSwiggan relied on that information to his detriment, the agency bore responsibility for his financial losses.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation The lawsuit took a sharper turn by alleging that the agents acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This claim suggested that the agency made statements about the lack of coverage while knowing they were untrue, or at least without caring if they were accurate. The Plaintiff contended that this led to a direct financial loss when he followed their dishonest guidance.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty The final claim argued that a special relationship of trust existed between the insurance agency and McSwiggan. As his insurance experts, the agency had a duty to protect his interests and provide sincere, accurate advice. By failing to correct their prior errors even as they continued to act as his agent through 2019, they violated the high standard of trust expected of them.
Defense
The O’Brien Insurance Agency filed a formal answer that largely challenged the Plaintiff’s version of events. The agency admitted to the basic facts regarding the identities of the parties and their status as a licensed agency in Connecticut. However, the defense claimed they had insufficient knowledge to confirm or deny many of the specific details regarding the accident, the nature of McSwiggan’s injuries, or the specifics of the 2019 audit.
Crucially, the agency issued a flat denial of all allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. By denying these paragraphs, the defense essentially challenged McSwiggan to prove in Court that the agents ever gave him the wrong advice or that they had any legal obligation to file a claim on his behalf.
Jury Verdict
On March 12, 2026, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Kevin McSwiggan, against O'Brien Insurance Agency, LLC. The jury awarded total damages in the amount of $55,008.89. This total included $28,255.54 designated for past economic damages.
In addition to the financial award, the jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on either the count of fraudulent misrepresentation or the count of breach of fiduciary duty. Based on this finding, the jury requested that the Court make a separate determination regarding punitive damages at a later date. The verdict was accepted and recorded by Judge Carletha Parkinson
