Development of abutting property causes flooding in home

The plaintiffs had lived in their modest ranch style home on a side street in the center of North Attleborough for more than 30 years.

Their property abutted a five-and-a half-acre brownfield parcel and derelict building used for jewelry manufacturing since the 1880s. The town rezoned the parcel for intensive development. Both properties are in the flood plain of an urban brook.

The defendant developer purchased the project after it had received a special permit for redevelopment as a six-story, 193-unit apartment complex. The developer followed the approved plan, which called for topographical and drainage changes resulting in the storage of rainwater and flood water next to the plaintiffs’ property.

As work progressed, the level of ground water on both properties increased, flooding out the plaintiffs’ basement to a depth of several feet. The flooding in the basement destroyed a bedroom, storage area, furnace, water heater, electric service and personal property.

The plaintiffs protested and repeatedly requested that the developer cease storing water near their property. The developer took the position that since it followed the approved plan, the plaintiffs had to be mistaken as to the cause of the flooding.

After living in their flooded home without heat, hot water or electricity for two years and without the possibility of help from the developer, the plaintiffs sold their home at a loss and moved to West Virginia.

During the 10-day trial, the plaintiffs’ engineer explained how the developer’s changes to the real estate caused the plaintiffs’ home to flood. Real estate and personal property appraisers testified to the financial damage done to the plaintiffs’ property.

The defendants’ engineer opined that the flooding was caused by poor sump pump maintenance.

The jury found the defendant had created a private nuisance and found damage to the plaintiffs’ real estate of $200,000, damage to personal property of $150,000, and damage for emotional distress of $650,000. The jury also found the plaintiffs to have been 15 percent negligent. This resulted in a judgment on the jury verdict of $1,201,268.37 with interest.

During post-trial motions and the defendant’s preparation for an appeal, the parties settled for the defendant’s insurance policy limit of $1 million.

Action: Negligence and tort
Injuries alleged: Damage to real estate and personal property, emotional distress
Case name: Banks, et al. v. JSIP 21 East QOZ Property Owner, LLC
Court/case no.: Bristol County Superior Court/No. 2273CV00029
Jury and/or judge: Jury/Judge Raffi N. Yessayan (settled post-verdict)
Demand: $750,000
Highest offer: $250,000
Amount: $1 million
Special damages: $200,000, damage to real estate; $150,000, damage to personal property
Most helpful expert: Evan Watson, professional engineer, Taunton
Date: Oct. 29, 2025
Attorneys: Stephen D. Clapp of North Attleborough; Thomas G. Morin of Attleboro (for the plaintiffs)