Preview
SUMMONS - CIVIL For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUT
JD-CV-1 Rev. 2-20 ADA accommodations,
C.G.S. §~ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259;
contact a court clerk or
SUPERIOR COURT (~J~~)
P.B. §~ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13
www.jud.ctgov ~
go to: www.jud.ct.gov/ADA.
Instructions are on page 2.
Select if amount,legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500.
~ Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE.
~ Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages.
TO: Any proper officer
By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint.
Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
300 Grand Street, Waterbury, CT 06702 (203) 591 —3300 1112412020
~ Judicial District GA. At (City/Town) Case type code (See list on page 2)
~ Housing Session fl Number: Waterbury Major: T Minor: 03
For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of:
Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code)
Juris number (if attorney or law firm)
Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald, 237 Buckingham Street, Hartford, CT 06126 028160
Telephone number Signature of plaintiff (if seff-represented)
(860) 525—3101
The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of the
self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically Connecticut Practice Book (if agreed)
in this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book.
~ Yes ~ No tww@hksflaw.com
Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town; state; zip; countiy, if not USA)
First Name: Third Party Plaintiff: Clarke, William P 01
plaintiff Address:18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 -
Additional Name: Third Party Plaintiff: Clarke, Juvy P 02
plaintiff Address: 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074
First Name: Third Party Defendant: Diaz, Orlando D 01
defendant Address: 6 Tower Road, East Hartford, CT 06108 -
Additional Name: Third Party Defendant: AlIPro Properties LLC Agent for Service: Orlando Diaz D 02
defendant Address: 30 Zimmer Road, East Hartford, CT 06118
Additional Name: D-03
defendant Address:
Additional Name: D-04
defendant Address:
Total number of plaintiffs: 2 Total number of defendants: 2 ~ Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties
Notice to each defendant
1. You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you.
2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally,
it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to
court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear.
3. If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance
form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/.
4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact
your insurance representative.Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found in a
superior court law library or on-line at https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.
5. If you have questions about the summons an complaint, you should talk to an attorney.
The court staff is not allowed to vi e on legal matters.
Date ~fi~n and Se! r r ox ~ Commissioner of Superior Court
Name of person signing
1110212020 E ________________ Clerk Todd W. Whitford
If this summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use Only
a. The signing has been done so that the laintiff(s) will not be denied
ccess to the courts. File Date
b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s)
o ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law.
c. The court staff is not permitted to giv
any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any
errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the
summons or complaint. ___________________________
I certify I have read and Signed (Self-represented plaintiff) Date Docket Number
understand the above: __________________________
Page 1 of 2
n fl)
RETURN DATE: NOVEMBER 24,2020
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV2O-6055118-S : SUPERIOR COURT
THOMAS BINK : J.D. OF WATERBURY
VS. : AT WATERBURY
WILLIAM CLARKE, ET AL : NOVEMBER 2, 2020
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
1. Through his complaint, dated May 19, 2020, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, brought
this action sounding in negligence against the defendants, William and Juvy Clarke, property
owners at 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT.
2. In his Complaint, First and Second Counts, at Paragraphs 6 through 20, the
plaintiff, Thomas Bink claims damages, losses and injuries, and alleges the following against the
Clarkes:
6. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, hired All Pro Properties,
LLC, Orlando Diaz andlor the plaintiff to remove trees and tree branches at 18 High
Ridge Road, South Windsor, Connecticut.
7. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees knew or should have known that the condition of the trees and tree branches
required work by certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists.
8. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees took no steps to confirm that Orlando Diaz and the employees/independent
contractors of All Pro Properties, LLC, were certified, licensed, accredited and fully
insured arborists.
9. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees took no steps to confirm that the plaintiff was a certified, licensed, accredited
HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FrrZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JUR~S NO. 28160
n n
and fully insured arborists.
10. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part by using Craigslist.
11. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part, based on Orlando Diaz and the
employees/independent contracts not being certified, licensed, accredited and fully
insured arborists.
12. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or
employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part, based on the plaintiff not
being certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists.
13. The defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees provided the
plaintiff Orlando Diaz, and All Pro Properties, LLC with equipment, materials,
instructions, and/or guidance on how to complete their assigned work at 18 High Ridge
Road, South Windsor, Connecticut.
14. On or about August 20, 2018, the plaintiff Thomas Bink, was lawfully on the
premises, when he was injured by a tree and/or tree branch, thereby causing him to suffer
the injuries and losses set forth below.
15. The incident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, William [and Juvy]
Clarke, their agents, servants and/or employees in one or more of the following ways:
a) they failed to properly maintain the trees and tree branches;
b) they failed to properly inspect the trees and tree branches
before anyone performed work thereon;
c) they failed to be present, at the premises, to describe the work
that was to be performed on the trees and tree branches;
d) they failed to be present, at the premises, while work was
performed on the trees and tree branches;
e) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees
and tree branches because All Pro Properties, LLC was not a
certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborist
company;
f) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees
and tree branches because Orlando Diaz and the
employees/independent contracts of All Pro Properties, LLC
HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160
0 n
were not certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured
arborists;
g) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees
and tree branches because the plaintiff was not a certified,
licensed, accredited and filly insured arborist;
h) they failed to enact and/or follow adequate procedures to
ensure the trees and tree branches were properly inspected
prior to anyone working thereon;
I) they knew or should have known that people, including
Orlando Diaz and the plaintiff, would be working on the
trees and tree branches, yet failed to address their
dangerous overgrown condition;
j) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff were individually certified, licensed, accredited and
fully insured;
k) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff through Craigslist;
I) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff to have work performed on the trees and tree branches
without vetting out the company;
m) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff were licensed arborists;
n) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming.that Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff were certified arborists;
o) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff were insured arborists;
plaintiff) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff
were accredited arborists;
q) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, without confirming that
Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff had the proper permits;
r) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming the arborist license number of
Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff;
s) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINOHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798 • HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160
n
plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff were members of the Connecticut Tree Protective
Association;
t) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the
plaintiff without confirming that the company was registered
with the CT Department of Energy & Environmental
Protection;
u) they failed to properly train their agents to ensure the trees and
tree branches were removed, prior to anyone working on the
premises.
v) they knew or should have known of the overgrown trees
and tree branches yet took no steps to remedy the area,
before allowing anyone, including the plaintiff on the
premises;
w) they allowed the overgrown trees and tree branches to exist
for an unreasonable period of time;
x) they failed to remove the overgrown trees and tree branches,
before allowing anyone, including the plaintiff on the
premises;
y) they failed to warn others, including the plaintiff of the
overgrown trees and tree branches;
z) they failed to erect signs, barriers or otherwise isolate the
overgrown trees and tree branches; and/or
aa) they failed to provide others, including the plaintiff with the
appropriate equipment including but limited to: gloves; hard
hat; earplugs; helmets; ropes; vests; nets; saws; gloves; glasses
and/or boots to ensure their safety while on the premises.
16. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff; Thomas Bink, suffered the following injuries,
some or all of which may be permanent in nature:
a) multi-level spinous process fractures from T4- 10;
b) spinal cord transection at TI 0-11;
c) grade 3 anterolisthesisofTl0-l 1;
d) disc fracture atTlO-li;
e) disc fracture at L1-2;
f) disc fracture at L3;
g) spinal cord injury;
h) spinal cord injury, requiring surgery and revision surgery;
I) paraplegia;
How~o, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGRAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160
n n
j) lack of feeling in legs;
k) neurogenic shock;
I) left psoas muscle hematoma;
m) dislocation of rib joint at T1l-12;
n) dislocation of rib joint at T11-12;
o) rib fractures;
plaintiff) rib pain;
q) back pain;
r) abdominal pain;
s) priapism;
t) loss of sensation from umbilicus downward;
u) inability to move bilateral extremities;
v) deep vein thrombosis;
w) neurogenic bladder;
x) neurogenic bowel;
y) pulmonary emboli;
z) inability to control bowel or bladder;
aa) urinary tract infection;
bb) pressure ulcers;
cc) infections;
dd) neuropathic pain;
ee) fear of future surgery; and
ff) pain and suffering, both mental and physical.
17. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, was forced to incur
expenses for medical care and treatment, all necessary to his recovery, and will likely be
forced to incur additional expenses in the future.
18. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, was forced to miss time
and wages from his employment.
19. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, suffered a loss of
earning capacity.
20. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff Thomas Bink, was unable and remains
unable to participate in and enjoy his usual activities.
3. Prior to the date of the injury, the defendants and the proposed third party
HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINQHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 061 26-1 798• (860) 525-3101 • JUR~S NO. 28160
fl n
defendants had entered into an oral contract, premised on a written estimate to provide
professional tree removal services.
4. The oral contract included that Mr. Diaz and/or his single member limited liability
company All Pro Properties, LLC were fully licensed and insured and that his insurance would
respond to any losses occasioned by the work on the property, a contractually implied
indemnification provision.
5. The oral contract included that the work would be performed with all the
necessary care to protect life and property.
6. The Clarke’s were not home at any point during the relevant tree removal services
provided by Mr. Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC.
7. At the time of the loss and the Plaintiff’s injuries, possession and control of the
Clarkes’ trees and branches, and the exterior of the property around said trees and branches, were
within the exclusive control of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC, to
the exclusion of the Third Party Plaintiffs, William and Juvy Clarke
4. if the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink, sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in
Paragraphs 6-20 of his Complaint, then said injuries and losses were caused by the active
negligence of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC.
5. if the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink, sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in
Paragraphs 6-20 of his Complaint, then the negligence of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and
All Pro Properties, LLC, was the direct and immediate cause of the above referenced accident
HOWARD, KaHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798• HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160
and resulting injuries to the Plaintiff.
6. If the Third Party Defendants were negligent as alleged by the Plaintiff in his
Complaint, the Defendants/Third Party plaintiffs William and Juvy Clarke, had no reason to
know of the negligence of the Third Party Defendants, had no reason to anticipate it, and could
reasonably rely on the Third Party Defendants not to be negligent.
7. Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, William and Juvy Clarke, are entitled to
indemnification from the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC, for any
amounts which they becomes obligated to pay as a result of any judgment which may enter
against them in this action, including all costs and attorneys’ fees in defending the action
commenced against them by the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink.
DEFENDANT(S)
BY 4ll77~~
Todd W. Whitford of
Howard, Kohn, Sprague &
237 Buckingham Street P 0 Box
Hartford CT 06 126-1798
PH: 860-525-3101
Juris 28160
Their Attorneys
How~o, KOHN SPRAGUE & FrTZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGRAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798 • HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798 • (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160
fl
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this pleading complies with the requirements of Practice Book § 4-7
and a copy of the foregoing was mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or electronically delivered
pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 to all counsel and pro se parties of record who have given
written consent for electronic delivery, on November 2, 2020, as follows:
Jason T. Prueher
Gould Law Group, LLC
900 Grand Avenue, Suite 1
New Haven, CT 06511
jprueher@gouldinjurylaw.com
Todd W. Whitford
Commissioner of the Superior Court
HOWARD, KaHN SPRAGUE & FrrZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. B0X261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 . JURIS NO. 28160
STATE OF CONNECTICUT:
ss: EAST HARTFORD NOVEMBER 9, 2020
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
Then and by virtue hereof~ and by direction of the Plaintiff’s Attorney, I left a
verified true and attested copy of the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION, at the usual place of abode of the within
named third party defendant ORLANDO DIAZ, 30 ZIMMER ROAD, in the said
town of EAST HARTFORD, County of Hartford. Please Note: I have personal
knowledge that Orlando Diaz does not reside at 6 Tower Road as I was the Marshal
that evicted him from that property.
And also, on the 9TH day of NOVEMBER, 2020, I left a verified true and
attested copy of the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
AND CERTIFICATION, at the usual place of abode of ORLANDO DIAZ, 30
ZIMMER ROAD, AGENT FOR SERVICE for the within named third party
defendant ALLPRO PROPERTIES, LLC, in the said town of EAST HARTFORD,
z 1 County of Hartford.
The within is the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION, with my doings thereon endorsed.
Verified pages $18.00
Endorsements 2.80
Service 60.00 KEITH NIZ~,4NK1E~Z
Travel 5.00 CT STATE I~?(ARSHAL~
HARTFORD COUNTY
Total $85.80
KEITH D. NIZIANKIEWICZ
Co~iEcrzcur STATE M,~sm~i~
P.O. BOX 280867• EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06128-0867 • OFFICE: (860) 6L0.0295
Preview
SUMMONS - CIVIL For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUT JD-CV-1 Rev. 2-20 ADA accommodations, C.G.S. §~ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259; contact a court clerk or SUPERIOR COURT (~J~~) P.B. §~ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 www.jud.ctgov ~ go to: www.jud.ct.gov/ADA. Instructions are on page 2. Select if amount,legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500. ~ Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE. ~ Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages. TO: Any proper officer By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint. Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be a Tuesday) 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, CT 06702 (203) 591 —3300 1112412020 ~ Judicial District GA. At (City/Town) Case type code (See list on page 2) ~ Housing Session fl Number: Waterbury Major: T Minor: 03 For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of: Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) Juris number (if attorney or law firm) Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald, 237 Buckingham Street, Hartford, CT 06126 028160 Telephone number Signature of plaintiff (if seff-represented) (860) 525—3101 The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of the self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically Connecticut Practice Book (if agreed) in this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. ~ Yes ~ No tww@hksflaw.com Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town; state; zip; countiy, if not USA) First Name: Third Party Plaintiff: Clarke, William P 01 plaintiff Address:18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 - Additional Name: Third Party Plaintiff: Clarke, Juvy P 02 plaintiff Address: 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 First Name: Third Party Defendant: Diaz, Orlando D 01 defendant Address: 6 Tower Road, East Hartford, CT 06108 - Additional Name: Third Party Defendant: AlIPro Properties LLC Agent for Service: Orlando Diaz D 02 defendant Address: 30 Zimmer Road, East Hartford, CT 06118 Additional Name: D-03 defendant Address: Additional Name: D-04 defendant Address: Total number of plaintiffs: 2 Total number of defendants: 2 ~ Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties Notice to each defendant 1. You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you. 2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally, it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear. 3. If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/. 4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact your insurance representative.Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found in a superior court law library or on-line at https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm. 5. If you have questions about the summons an complaint, you should talk to an attorney. The court staff is not allowed to vi e on legal matters. Date ~fi~n and Se! r r ox ~ Commissioner of Superior Court Name of person signing 1110212020 E ________________ Clerk Todd W. Whitford If this summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use Only a. The signing has been done so that the laintiff(s) will not be denied ccess to the courts. File Date b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) o ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law. c. The court staff is not permitted to giv any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit. d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the summons or complaint. ___________________________ I certify I have read and Signed (Self-represented plaintiff) Date Docket Number understand the above: __________________________ Page 1 of 2 n fl) RETURN DATE: NOVEMBER 24,2020 DOCKET NO. UWY-CV2O-6055118-S : SUPERIOR COURT THOMAS BINK : J.D. OF WATERBURY VS. : AT WATERBURY WILLIAM CLARKE, ET AL : NOVEMBER 2, 2020 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 1. Through his complaint, dated May 19, 2020, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, brought this action sounding in negligence against the defendants, William and Juvy Clarke, property owners at 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT. 2. In his Complaint, First and Second Counts, at Paragraphs 6 through 20, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink claims damages, losses and injuries, and alleges the following against the Clarkes: 6. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz andlor the plaintiff to remove trees and tree branches at 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, Connecticut. 7. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees knew or should have known that the condition of the trees and tree branches required work by certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists. 8. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees took no steps to confirm that Orlando Diaz and the employees/independent contractors of All Pro Properties, LLC, were certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists. 9. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees took no steps to confirm that the plaintiff was a certified, licensed, accredited HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FrrZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JUR~S NO. 28160 n n and fully insured arborists. 10. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part by using Craigslist. 11. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part, based on Orlando Diaz and the employees/independent contracts not being certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists. 12. Prior to August 20, 2018, the defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees negotiated a reduced rate for tree-work, in part, based on the plaintiff not being certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists. 13. The defendant, William Clarke, his agents, servants and/or employees provided the plaintiff Orlando Diaz, and All Pro Properties, LLC with equipment, materials, instructions, and/or guidance on how to complete their assigned work at 18 High Ridge Road, South Windsor, Connecticut. 14. On or about August 20, 2018, the plaintiff Thomas Bink, was lawfully on the premises, when he was injured by a tree and/or tree branch, thereby causing him to suffer the injuries and losses set forth below. 15. The incident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, William [and Juvy] Clarke, their agents, servants and/or employees in one or more of the following ways: a) they failed to properly maintain the trees and tree branches; b) they failed to properly inspect the trees and tree branches before anyone performed work thereon; c) they failed to be present, at the premises, to describe the work that was to be performed on the trees and tree branches; d) they failed to be present, at the premises, while work was performed on the trees and tree branches; e) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees and tree branches because All Pro Properties, LLC was not a certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborist company; f) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees and tree branches because Orlando Diaz and the employees/independent contracts of All Pro Properties, LLC HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160 0 n were not certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured arborists; g) they negotiated a lower rate on the price of work on the trees and tree branches because the plaintiff was not a certified, licensed, accredited and filly insured arborist; h) they failed to enact and/or follow adequate procedures to ensure the trees and tree branches were properly inspected prior to anyone working thereon; I) they knew or should have known that people, including Orlando Diaz and the plaintiff, would be working on the trees and tree branches, yet failed to address their dangerous overgrown condition; j) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were individually certified, licensed, accredited and fully insured; k) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff through Craigslist; I) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff to have work performed on the trees and tree branches without vetting out the company; m) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were licensed arborists; n) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming.that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were certified arborists; o) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were insured arborists; plaintiff) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were accredited arborists; q) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff had the proper permits; r) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming the arborist license number of Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff; s) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINOHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798 • HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160 n plaintiff without confirming that Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff were members of the Connecticut Tree Protective Association; t) they hired All Pro Properties, LLC, Orlando Diaz and/or the plaintiff without confirming that the company was registered with the CT Department of Energy & Environmental Protection; u) they failed to properly train their agents to ensure the trees and tree branches were removed, prior to anyone working on the premises. v) they knew or should have known of the overgrown trees and tree branches yet took no steps to remedy the area, before allowing anyone, including the plaintiff on the premises; w) they allowed the overgrown trees and tree branches to exist for an unreasonable period of time; x) they failed to remove the overgrown trees and tree branches, before allowing anyone, including the plaintiff on the premises; y) they failed to warn others, including the plaintiff of the overgrown trees and tree branches; z) they failed to erect signs, barriers or otherwise isolate the overgrown trees and tree branches; and/or aa) they failed to provide others, including the plaintiff with the appropriate equipment including but limited to: gloves; hard hat; earplugs; helmets; ropes; vests; nets; saws; gloves; glasses and/or boots to ensure their safety while on the premises. 16. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff; Thomas Bink, suffered the following injuries, some or all of which may be permanent in nature: a) multi-level spinous process fractures from T4- 10; b) spinal cord transection at TI 0-11; c) grade 3 anterolisthesisofTl0-l 1; d) disc fracture atTlO-li; e) disc fracture at L1-2; f) disc fracture at L3; g) spinal cord injury; h) spinal cord injury, requiring surgery and revision surgery; I) paraplegia; How~o, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGRAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160 n n j) lack of feeling in legs; k) neurogenic shock; I) left psoas muscle hematoma; m) dislocation of rib joint at T1l-12; n) dislocation of rib joint at T11-12; o) rib fractures; plaintiff) rib pain; q) back pain; r) abdominal pain; s) priapism; t) loss of sensation from umbilicus downward; u) inability to move bilateral extremities; v) deep vein thrombosis; w) neurogenic bladder; x) neurogenic bowel; y) pulmonary emboli; z) inability to control bowel or bladder; aa) urinary tract infection; bb) pressure ulcers; cc) infections; dd) neuropathic pain; ee) fear of future surgery; and ff) pain and suffering, both mental and physical. 17. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, was forced to incur expenses for medical care and treatment, all necessary to his recovery, and will likely be forced to incur additional expenses in the future. 18. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, was forced to miss time and wages from his employment. 19. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff, Thomas Bink, suffered a loss of earning capacity. 20. As a further result of the incident, the plaintiff Thomas Bink, was unable and remains unable to participate in and enjoy his usual activities. 3. Prior to the date of the injury, the defendants and the proposed third party HOWARD, KOHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINQHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798. HARTFORD, CT 061 26-1 798• (860) 525-3101 • JUR~S NO. 28160 fl n defendants had entered into an oral contract, premised on a written estimate to provide professional tree removal services. 4. The oral contract included that Mr. Diaz and/or his single member limited liability company All Pro Properties, LLC were fully licensed and insured and that his insurance would respond to any losses occasioned by the work on the property, a contractually implied indemnification provision. 5. The oral contract included that the work would be performed with all the necessary care to protect life and property. 6. The Clarke’s were not home at any point during the relevant tree removal services provided by Mr. Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC. 7. At the time of the loss and the Plaintiff’s injuries, possession and control of the Clarkes’ trees and branches, and the exterior of the property around said trees and branches, were within the exclusive control of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC, to the exclusion of the Third Party Plaintiffs, William and Juvy Clarke 4. if the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink, sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in Paragraphs 6-20 of his Complaint, then said injuries and losses were caused by the active negligence of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC. 5. if the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink, sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in Paragraphs 6-20 of his Complaint, then the negligence of the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC, was the direct and immediate cause of the above referenced accident HOWARD, KaHN SPRAGUE & FITZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798• HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160 and resulting injuries to the Plaintiff. 6. If the Third Party Defendants were negligent as alleged by the Plaintiff in his Complaint, the Defendants/Third Party plaintiffs William and Juvy Clarke, had no reason to know of the negligence of the Third Party Defendants, had no reason to anticipate it, and could reasonably rely on the Third Party Defendants not to be negligent. 7. Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, William and Juvy Clarke, are entitled to indemnification from the Third Party Defendants, Diaz and All Pro Properties, LLC, for any amounts which they becomes obligated to pay as a result of any judgment which may enter against them in this action, including all costs and attorneys’ fees in defending the action commenced against them by the Plaintiff, Thomas Bink. DEFENDANT(S) BY 4ll77~~ Todd W. Whitford of Howard, Kohn, Sprague & 237 Buckingham Street P 0 Box Hartford CT 06 126-1798 PH: 860-525-3101 Juris 28160 Their Attorneys How~o, KOHN SPRAGUE & FrTZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGRAM STREET • P.O. BOX 261798 • HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798 • (860) 525-3101 • JURIS NO. 28160 fl CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this pleading complies with the requirements of Practice Book § 4-7 and a copy of the foregoing was mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or electronically delivered pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 to all counsel and pro se parties of record who have given written consent for electronic delivery, on November 2, 2020, as follows: Jason T. Prueher Gould Law Group, LLC 900 Grand Avenue, Suite 1 New Haven, CT 06511 jprueher@gouldinjurylaw.com Todd W. Whitford Commissioner of the Superior Court HOWARD, KaHN SPRAGUE & FrrZGERALD, LLP •ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 237 BUCKINGHAM STREET • P.O. B0X261798. HARTFORD, CT 06126-1798. (860)525-3101 . JURIS NO. 28160 STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss: EAST HARTFORD NOVEMBER 9, 2020 COUNTY OF HARTFORD Then and by virtue hereof~ and by direction of the Plaintiff’s Attorney, I left a verified true and attested copy of the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION, at the usual place of abode of the within named third party defendant ORLANDO DIAZ, 30 ZIMMER ROAD, in the said town of EAST HARTFORD, County of Hartford. Please Note: I have personal knowledge that Orlando Diaz does not reside at 6 Tower Road as I was the Marshal that evicted him from that property. And also, on the 9TH day of NOVEMBER, 2020, I left a verified true and attested copy of the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION, at the usual place of abode of ORLANDO DIAZ, 30 ZIMMER ROAD, AGENT FOR SERVICE for the within named third party defendant ALLPRO PROPERTIES, LLC, in the said town of EAST HARTFORD, z 1 County of Hartford. The within is the original WRIT, SUMMONS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION, with my doings thereon endorsed. Verified pages $18.00 Endorsements 2.80 Service 60.00 KEITH NIZ~,4NK1E~Z Travel 5.00 CT STATE I~?(ARSHAL~ HARTFORD COUNTY Total $85.80 KEITH D. NIZIANKIEWICZ Co~iEcrzcur STATE M,~sm~i~ P.O. BOX 280867• EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06128-0867 • OFFICE: (860) 6L0.0295