Boyle, Morrissey & Campo, P.C.            Newsletter
 
June 2008
In This Issue
I. BMC OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT IN MAINE
II. MA - PIP - SUBROGATION RIGHT FOR RENTAL CAR COMPANY
III. MA - PIP - DENIAL OF COVERAGE DUE TO LATE FILING OF APPLICATION REQUIRES SHOWING OF PREJUDICE TO INSURER
IV. MA - MOTION TO DISMISS - REASONABLE TIME TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS ASSERTING INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
V. MA - MOTION TO DISMISS - JOINDER OF INDISPENSIBLE PARTY
VI. NH - PAYMENT OF MED-PAY EXPENSES - LATE REPORTING
VII. NH - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - INCLUDES DAY OF FILING OF WRIT
VIII. RI - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - DISCOVERY RULE
Join Our Mailing List!
Quick Links
BMC Logo

This summary of recent developments in the law of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island is provided as a courtesy to our clients. The original text of cases and statutes will be provided upon request.

John D. Boyle

I. BMC OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT IN MAINE

On June 4, 2008, Attorney Mike Johnson from Boyle, Morrissey and Campo, P.C. obtained a defense verdict in a Cumberland County, Maine case.  The case involved business interruption claims as a result of alleged defective work on a production boiler by the defendant.  Attorney Johnson was able to rebut the plaintiff's claims that the defendant was negligent and made negligent misrepresentations when performing work on Atlantic Laboratories' main production boiler.  

 
II. MASSACHUSETTS - PIP - SUBROGATION RIGHT FOR RENTAL CAR COMPANY
In Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, Inc. v. Arbella Mutual Ins. Co., et al., 451 Mass. 264 (2008), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a self-insured rental car company which paid PIP benefits had the right under G.L. c. 90, § 34M to pursue subrogation from the auto insurer for the operator's personal vehicle.
 
 

Read On...

III. MASSACHUSETTS - PIP -

DENIAL OF COVERAGE DUE TO LATE FILING OF APPLICATION REQUIRES SHOWING OF PREJUDICE TO INSURER

In Boffoli v. Premier Ins. Co., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 212 (2008), the Appeals Court held that an insurer must demonstrate prejudice in order to disclaim coverage for PIP benefits due to the late filing of an application for such benefits, provided the application is filed within two years of the accident. 
 

Read On...

IV.  MASSACHUSETTS - MOTION TO DISMISS - REASONABLE TIME TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS ASSERTING INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

In Raposo v. Evans, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 379 (2008), the Appeals Court held that, as a matter of first impression, a defendant must raise the defense of insufficiency of service of process in a timely motion to dismiss or else the defense is waived.
 

V.  MASSACHUSETTS - MOTION TO DISMISS - JOINDER OF INDISPENSIBLE PARTY

In Picciotto v. Continental Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2008), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff could not sustain diversity jurisdiction in a federal court action by refusing to join a necessary and indispensable party who was a resident of the same state. 
 
Read On...

VI.  NEW HAMPSHIRE -

PAYMENT OF MED-PAY EXPENSES - LATE REPORTING

In Bates v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (June 13, 2008), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the insurer of a residential landlord improperly denied medical expense payments to the tenant of its insured despite the tenant not having reported her injuries to the insurer within a year of their occurrence. The Supreme Court decided that the insurer had not been prejudiced by the late reporting because the tenant's attorney had placed the insurer on notice about the alleged treatment, the tenant's injuries, and the treatment related to the injuries within the deadline.
 

Read On...

VII.  NEW HAMPSHIRE -

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - INCLUDES DAY OF FILING WRIT

In Chesley v. Harvey Industries, Inc. (April 22, 2008), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations period includes the day of filing.

Read On...

VIII.  RHODE ISLAND -

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - DISCOVERY RULE

In the case of Blouin v. Davol, Inc., et al, the Providence Superior Court recently denied Davol, Inc.'s motion to dismiss pursuant to G.L. 1956 s. 9-1-14(b), despite the fact that the plaintiff's complaint came more than three years after an alleged defect was discovered in the product manufactured by the defendant.

Read On...