Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Julia F. Fountain specializes in the representation of property, casualty and financial lines insurers in complex coverage disputes and coverage litigation. Prior to joining our firm, Julia held two judicial internships – one in the District Court for the District of Columbia for Judge Rudolph Contreras, and the other in the District Court for the District of Connecticut for Judge Alfred V. Covello – during which she researched and drafted bench memoranda and draft opinions. Her litigation experience also includes disputes related to enforcement of federal and state environmental statutes, as well as representing clients in connection with business disputes. Julia has experience in all stages of the litigation process, from taking depositions to trial.

Julia is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center. During law school, she worked as a student attorney for the Institute for Public Representation’s Environmental Law Clinic, where she researched and authored memoranda concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory framework for food production and drafted comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to promulgate rules regulating scientific information. She also was active in the Women’s Legal Alliance and the Environmental Law Society.

Julia’s interests include international travel, wildlife protection, and musical theatre. 

  • Georgetown University Law Center (Juris Doctor)
    • Dean's List
    • American Criminal Law Review, Notes Development Editor
  • Elon University (Bachelors, magna cum laude)
    • B.A., Political Science
    • Dean's List and President's List

  • State of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Connecticut Bar Association
Chair, Litigation Committee, Young Lawyers Section Executive Committee (2023)
Co-Chair, Litigation Committee, Young Lawyers Section Executive Committee (2022)

News


January 16, 2026

Insurance Appeals Team Achieves Key Victory on PIP Coverage Before Massachusetts Appeals Court

Robinson+Cole’s Insurance Appeals team secured an important victory for a major insurer before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which issued a decision confirming the scope of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage under state law. The plaintiff sought PIP coverage for injuries sustained while allegedly evading an oncoming vehicle, arguing that the statutory term “struck” should encompass “near miss” incidents without physical contact. The Appeals Court unanimously agreed with our client’s position and the lower courts, holding that the plain meaning of “struck” in the statute requires actual physical contact with the motor vehicle. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on out-of-state decisions and distinguished a Supreme Judicial Court’s decision regarding “hit and run” incidents under uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. The Appeals Court further emphasized that expanding coverage to “near miss” cases would create ambiguity and uncertainty in the statute and concluded that any such change is for the legislature to address. This important outcome provides important guidance for insurers and policyholders regarding the requirements for PIP benefits in Massachusetts. A petition for further appellate review is pending in the Supreme Judicial Court. The Insurance Appeals team was led by partner Wystan Ackerman, with key support from Julia Fountain.

July 13, 2022

Julia Fountain, Jeffrey Renaud and Emily Zaklukiewicz Appointed to CBA Young Lawyers Section Executive Committee

September 15, 2021

Robinson+Cole Welcomes Fall Class

January 16, 2026

Insurance Appeals Team Achieves Key Victory on PIP Coverage Before Massachusetts Appeals Court

Robinson+Cole’s Insurance Appeals team secured an important victory for a major insurer before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which issued a decision confirming the scope of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage under state law. The plaintiff sought PIP coverage for injuries sustained while allegedly evading an oncoming vehicle, arguing that the statutory term “struck” should encompass “near miss” incidents without physical contact. The Appeals Court unanimously agreed with our client’s position and the lower courts, holding that the plain meaning of “struck” in the statute requires actual physical contact with the motor vehicle. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on out-of-state decisions and distinguished a Supreme Judicial Court’s decision regarding “hit and run” incidents under uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. The Appeals Court further emphasized that expanding coverage to “near miss” cases would create ambiguity and uncertainty in the statute and concluded that any such change is for the legislature to address. This important outcome provides important guidance for insurers and policyholders regarding the requirements for PIP benefits in Massachusetts. A petition for further appellate review is pending in the Supreme Judicial Court. The Insurance Appeals team was led by partner Wystan Ackerman, with key support from Julia Fountain.

July 13, 2022

Julia Fountain, Jeffrey Renaud and Emily Zaklukiewicz Appointed to CBA Young Lawyers Section Executive Committee

September 15, 2021

Robinson+Cole Welcomes Fall Class