Attorney Tedford graduated from the University of Connecticut in 1969, and received his law degree from Suffolk University in 1972. After obtaining that degree, Mr. Tedford served as a member of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps, being admitted to the United States Court of Military Appeals in 1973. Additionally, Mr. Tedford was admitted to the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, in 1978.

Mr. Tedford is a member of the Connecticut Bar Association (Member, Trial Section) and the Hartford County Bar Association, as well as the Defense Research Institute. He is a member of the National Fire Protection Association, (Committee on Hazardous Chemicals), and a former member of the Fire Protection Research Foundation Advisory Council on Post Fire Analysis. Mr. Tedford's memberships also include the International Association of Arson Investigators, the Connecticut Chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators, and the National Association of Fire Investigators.

Over the course of his career, Mr. Tedford has had extensive experience in product liability and fire science litigation. Mr. Tedford has served as National Litigation Counsel for several major product manufacturers, coordinating and litigating product liability actions in jurisdictions throughout the United States. In addition, Mr. Tedford has developed significant experience in fire science litigation and devotes a substantial portion of his practice to that field. Mr. Tedford was counsel for the plaintiff in the landmark fire science litigation case of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. v. Namerow, 261 Conn. 784 (2002), in which he successfully litigated the notion that motive was not an element to be proven in a civil arson action.

Mr. Tedford has defended hundreds of high value matters in various courts, including the following

• Litigation involving batted ball head injuries resulting from the use of metal soft ball bats;
• Litigation involving firefighters sued for wrongful death following the crash of their fire engine;
• Litigation involving negligence and product liability claims brought by a quadriplegic injured in a diving board accident;
• Litigation alleging personal injuries from lead paint exposure;
  
• Litigation alleging personal injuries from a motorcycle-automobile traffic accident;
  
• Litigation involving construction parties involving personal injury and contract disputes;
• Litigation defending a major chemical manufacturer in lawsuits brought by burn victims;
• Litigation involving death and personal injuries resulting from a night club fire;
  
• Litigation involving a claim for personal injuries by plaintiff leaping from a third-story window to avoid being burned in fire;
  
• Litigation involving property damage and personal injury stemming from explosion of chemical products in warehouse fire;
• Litigation involving defense of insurers in civil arson cases;
• Litigation involving multi-million dollar product liability / fire claim against a tractor-trailer manufacturer;
• Litigation alleging personal injuries and wrongful death from exposure to Asbestos fibers;
• Litigation involving the defense of a multi-million dollar claim for fire damage to a nursing home.
  

Mr. Tedford’s Litigation Philosophy

During my years of practice, I have learned that the client’s needs constantly vary depending on the circumstances. Sometimes it is in the client’s best interests to aggressively litigate a case through trial. In other instances, a prompt and efficient resolution is more appropriate in view of the potential liabilities or the costs of defense. In every case, however, the client’s interests are served through an early competent evaluation as to a case’s strengths and weaknesses, an assessment of the potential cost of defending the matter through trial, and the development of a strategy for the case which will meet the client’s goals.

The strength of a defense must be balanced against the costs of litigation and the business interests impacted by a verdict or settlement. In certain cases, a prompt settlement could be a victory for the client. In other cases, the nature of the claim and the strengths of the defense warrant a vigorous defense through trial. In either instance, my goal is to develop a defense early on in the case, thereby placing the client in a position of strength to leverage a reasonable settlement or a defense verdict.

I have learned that a victory in defending a client is not defined simply as a jury verdict in its favor if the cost of that verdict outweighs the benefit which the client gains from a victory at trial. The business interests of the client often dictates that a victory may be defined as a good settlement early on in the case before the costs of defense outweigh the benefit of defending the case through trial. At all costs, the best interests of the client must be protected.