$13.1 Million Asset Hold Ordered Against Water Park Following Jury Verdict

In May 2024, a Connecticut jury awarded $9 million to Charles Beyer after he suffered a debilitating foot injury at Brownstone Exploration and Discovery Park LLC. While visiting the park, Beyer stepped on a submerged metal disc, resulting in a laceration that required urgent care. Due to hospital unavailability at the time of the incident, he received initial treatment at an urgent care center. However, the wound failed to heal properly, necessitating seven podiatric treatments. Judge Rupal Shah, who presided over the trial, noted the development of significant scar tissue and additional nerve damage, which ultimately impaired Beyer’s ability to walk.

The Asset Freeze

On April 10, 2025, Judge Shah granted Beyer’s post-verdict request for a prejudgment remedy, authorizing him to secure Brownstone’s assets in the amount of $13.1 million—the total of the jury award plus prejudgment interest. The ruling permits Beyer to attach or encumber Brownstone’s real and personal property, as well as accounts at financial institutions, in order to safeguard funds while the company pursues its appeal.

Brownstone’s counsel opposed the remedy, arguing that the verdict could be overturned on appeal. However, Judge Shah dismissed that contention, affirming that prejudgment remedies in Connecticut are evaluated on a standard of probable cause. “After due consideration, and the fact that a jury has rendered an actual verdict for the plaintiff, the court finds that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the action,” she wrote in her ruling.

The judge emphasized that state law allows such remedies at any stage of litigation, including after a trial. Citing Gagne v. Vaccaro, a 2003 Connecticut Appellate Court case, Judge Shah reinforced that post-verdict remedies are essential to protect plaintiffs awaiting the final resolution of appellate proceedings.

The Insurance Dispute and Concerns About Payment

The urgency of Beyer’s request was compounded by a related federal lawsuit filed by Brownstone’s insurers—AXA XL Syndicate Ltd. and Prime Insurance Co.—on March 27. In the federal action, the insurers sought to cap their liability at $1 million, far below the jury's award. Beyer responded by arguing that AXA had abandoned its coverage responsibilities and failed to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. He warned that without immediate action, his judgment might go unsecured pending appeal.

“Despite discussion at oral argument that Brownstone’s insurer (AXA) might post a bond,” Beyer’s counsel stated, “AXA filed a declaratory judgment action yesterday expressing its clear intention to expose Brownstone personally for its own bad faith claims handling, which will leave the plaintiff’s judgment unsecured on appeal.”

The Verdict and Interest Accrual

The jury’s verdict on May 30, 2024, awarded Beyer $3 million for past noneconomic damages and $6 million for future noneconomic damages. Judge Shah subsequently added over $4.1 million in interest, citing Beyer’s rejected settlement offers dating back to 2018. The plaintiff had attempted to settle the case on multiple occasions, with offers ranging from $625,000 to $1.8 million—each of which Brownstone declined.

In December 2024, Brownstone moved to set aside the verdict, asserting that the damages were excessive and that the court erred by excluding expert testimony and failing to instruct the jury on mitigation of damages. The company further contended that the jury had been unduly influenced. Judge Shah rejected these claims, stating, “This court cannot find that the jury in reaching its verdict was influenced by prejudice, impartiality, mistake, or corruption,” concluding that the defendant simply disagreed with the outcome.

The Appeal and What Comes Next

Brownstone has since appealed the case to the Connecticut Appellate Court, where it is arguing that the $9 million award “shocks the conscience” and that it was improperly denied the opportunity to present testimony from two physicians. Neither party has completed briefing the appeal, and no deadlines have been set.

In the meantime, Beyer must identify and report to Brownstone which specific assets he intends to encumber by May 10. The prejudgment remedy ensures that the funds awarded by the jury remain available should Brownstone’s appeal fail.

Law Firms Involved

Charles Beyer is represented by Claggett Sykes & Garza LLC, with attorneys Andrew P. Garza and Alexa Mahony serving as counsel. Brownstone is represented by McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP, through Karen L. Dowd and Kenneth J. Bartschi, and by Howd & Ludorf LLC, with attorneys Christopher M. Vossler and Rachel M. Bradford.

Case Information

Charles Beyer v. Brownstone Exploration & Discovery Park LLC, Case No. MMX-CV17-6017720, Middlesex Judicial District, Connecticut Superior Court

Appeal: Charles Beyer v. Brownstone Exploration & Discovery Park LLC, Case No. AC 48104, Connecticut Appellate Court

Federal insurance dispute: AXA XL Syndicate Ltd. et al. v. Beyer, Case No. 3:25-cv-00499, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut