| II. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DAMAGES - MARRIAGE AT TIME OF ALLEGED INJURY REQUIRED |
|
In Charron v. Amaral, 451 Mass. 767 (2008), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that as a matter of law a same-sex partner who had not been married to the plaintiff at the time at the alleged incident occurred was not entitled to assert loss of consortium damages even where it could be demonstrated that the couple would have married had they been permitted to do so and the couple married each other as soon as Massachusetts law allowed them to enter into marriage.
Read On... |
|
III. EUO - WILLFUL AND UNEXCUSED REFUSAL OF INSURED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO BUSINESS POLICY PROVISION REQUIRES NO SHOWING OF PREJUDICE TO INSURER |
|
In Hanover Insurance Company v. Cape Cod Custom Home Theater, Inc., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (2008), the Appeals Court held that an insurer properly denied coverage where an insured willfully and without excuse refused to comply with a reasonable request for an examination under oath even where the refusal did not cause prejudice to the insurer.
Read On... |
|
IV. DAMAGES - COST OF RESTORATION FOR TREES WRONGFULLY CUT DOWN WHERE PLAINTIFF PLANNED TO SELL LAND AND FAIR MARKET VALUE DIMUNITION WAS NEGLIGIBLE |
|
In Ritter v. Bergmann, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 296 (2008), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that a landowner whose trees had been wrongfully cut down was entitled to the cost to restore the trees and to triple damages despite the plaintiff having had plans to sell that land and the cutting of the trees causing a de minimus diminution in the fair market value of the land.
|
|
V. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS POSED BY THE FIRST CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASE REGARDING ALLOCATION OF LOSSES BETWEEN INSURERS AND BETWEEN INSURERS AND INSUREDS |
|
In Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company, 529 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ("SJC") three questions of first impression in Massachusetts relating to the allocation of losses between and among insurers and between insurers and insureds in environmental damage cases.
Read On... |
|
VI. NEW HAMPSHIRE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - ORDINARY BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE ISSUES DO NOT TRIGGER COMSUMER PROTECTION ACT |
|
In McNeal v. Lebel, 2008 WL 2697139 (N.H., July 11, 2008), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that actions involving routine and ordinary breach of contract and negligence issues do not trigger remedies under New Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act.
Read On... |
|
VII. RHODE ISLAND - SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY - NO DUTY OF CARE ABSENT SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP |
In Elizabeth Willis et al. v. Maurice Omar, (July 9, 2008), the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to create a new case of action which would impose a duty on a social host to protect a person from injury resulting from alcohol consumption by the guest or a drunk driver who leaves the party and caused injury or death. In the decision, the Court reaffirmed the well-settled precedent that, absent a special relationship, a social host does not owe a duty to a third party for injuries suffered by an intoxicated guest. The Court noted that the issue of whether an injured party should be able to maintain a cause of action arising from social host liability rests with the Legislature, not the Court.
|
Mark Shaughnessy recently obtained a defense verdict in a pharmacy liability lawsuit in Hillsborough Superior Court, Manchester, New Hampshire.
