Cozen O’Connor: Evans, Stacie M.

Stacie M. Evans

Attorney

Philadelphia

(215) 665-7271

(215) 665-2013

Stacie M. Evans represents clients in a variety of civil litigation matters including strict products liability, construction defect and loss claims.

During her career, Stacie has assisted numerous clients in obtaining significant recoveries in subrogation actions. Stacie is involved in all phases of the litigation process, including the initial review and investigation of a claim, coordinating with experts, preparing complaints, and drafting motions and other pleadings. 

Stacie earned her undergraduate degree from George Washington University, summa cum laude, where she was a member of the 1998 Atlantic 10 Championship Gymnastics Team. She earned her law degree from Harvard Law School. 

News

JLWOP Client’s Sentence Reduced

November 14, 2018

Peter Rossi and Stacie Evans successfully persuaded Judge McDermott to reduce Clarence Adams’s sentence of life without parole to 23.5 years to life, making him eligible for parole in six years.

Stacie Evans Quoted in Law 360 article Conn. Clears Path For Impending 'Made-Whole'

July 29, 2013

In the Fireman’s Fund v. TD Banknorth case the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that insurers should be made whole for their losses before policyholders can recoup deductibles from third parties, one of the first decisions to tackle a question that attorneys say will crop up more often now that deductibles have become costlier.

Publications

CPSC Advises Voluntary Industry Standards for Rechargeable Batteries Inadequate [Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog]

February 06, 2017

On January 23, 2017, Samsung announced that poorly designed and manufactured batteries are to blame for the fires associated with its Galaxy Note 7 phones. The announcement comes after months of investigation by Samsung and three independent industry organizations. The investigation revealed...

Defining the "Fuzzy Edges" of Rule 26(b)(4) [Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog]

February 02, 2016

As most attorneys involved in civil litigation are aware, Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 2010 to “address concerns about expert discovery.” ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTES TO 2010 AMENDMENTS. Specifically, the Advisory Committee was concerned about the “undesirable...

Establishing the Cause of a Fire Through Process of Elimination [Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog]

March 09, 2015

Establishing the cause of a fire through the process of elimination has been a hot topic in recent years, both among subrogation professionals as well as inside the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).  In 2011, NFPA explicitly rejected negative corpus as a reliable methodology in fire...

Pennsylvania Court Holds Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subsequent Purchasers [Subrogation & Recovery Alert]

September 12, 2014

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that the implied warranty of habitability does not extend to the subsequent purchaser of a previously occupied home. See Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., 2014 Pa. LEXIS 2084, No. 80 MAP 2013 (August 18, 2014). The court concluded that the decision of whether to extend the implied warranty of habitability, and under what circumstances such an extension would be warranted, was a matter of public policy properly left to the General Assembly.

Connecticut Supreme Court Holds Make Whole Doctrine Does Not Apply to Deductibles [Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog]

August 16, 2013

In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court provided valuable clarification regarding the application of the make whole doctrine in Connecticut. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. TD Banknorth Ins. Agency, Inc., --- A.3d --- , 309 Conn. 449 (Conn. July 30, 2013). The case arose out of an insurance...

Establishing the Cause of a Fire Through the Process of Elimination [Subrogation & Recovery Alert]

August 05, 2013

In 2011, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) explicitly rejected negative corpus as a reliable methodology in fire investigation. Section 18.6.5 presents a significant obstacle to subrogation actions when a fire’s ignition source cannot be conclusively determined due to the damage caused by the fire, particularly when it is believed that the fire was caused by a discarded cigarette. However, a recent decision in a case being handled by Cozen O’Connor from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio may serve as valuable precedent in such circumstances.

The Potential for Stigma Damages in Subrogation Actions [Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog]

October 09, 2012

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that stigma damages are potentially covered under a property insurance policy, leading to the possibility that the property insurer could pursue such damages in a subrogation action. Royal Capital Development LLC v. Maryland Casualty Company, 291 Ga. 262,...

That Sinking Feeling: Losses Arising from Sinkholes [Subrogation and Recovery Alert!]

December 20, 2010

That Sinking Feeling: Losses Arising from Sinkholes - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - Sinkhole claims are emblematic of a number of different loss scenarios that may be one part mother nature and one part human error. The challenge from a subrogation perspective is to recognize and perfect the recovery opportunities arising from these complex claims, including engineering and construction deficiencies that may contribute to the subterranean failure, and to do so in a way that takes into account time bars triggered by statutes of repose.

Industry Sectors

Education

  • Harvard Law School, J.D., 2005
  • George Washington University, B.A., summa cum laude, 2001
  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania