Free Newsletter
Insurance – Contribution – Indemnification
Where a third-party complaint has been brought against two insurance companies, the third-party complaint should be dismissed because the allegations do not plausibly suggest that either insurer is liable for contribution or indemnification.
Insurance – Chapter 93A – Emotional distress
Where two plaintiffs who filed a complaint against a defendant insurance company have moved to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to their existing G.L.c. 93A and breach of contract claims should be allowed but their motion should be denied on futility grounds to the extent that they are seeking to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as their all[...]
Attorneys – Fee award – Discovery violations
Where two defendants were defaulted for repeatedly and deliberately violating discovery orders, the commonwealth should be awarded fees in the amount of $27,850.
Arbitration – LLC – Operating agreement
Where a plaintiff filed a complaint to dissolve a limited liability company, the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be allowed, as it is up to an arbitrator to decide whether the parties’ dispute is arbitrable under a provision in the LLC operating agreement.
Employment – Whistleblower
Where a plaintiff physician has filed a complaint under the “medical whistleblower statute” (G.L.c. 149, §187), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff did not engage in any activity protected by the statute.
Insurance – Duty to defend
Where the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has claimed a violation of the duty to defend, the insurer’s duty to defend continued until the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of an intentional interference claim against the commission, after which the duty ended as a matter of law.
Appeals Court revives Governo firm’s bid for 93A damages
A law firm that sued six former employees who took electronic client files and databases to be used in establishing their own asbestos litigation firm is entitled to damages under Chapter 93A, an Appeals Court panel has found in reversing a Superior Court judge’s finding that the plaintiff firm suffered “no harm” as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive practices.
Constitutional – Standing – House rule amendment
Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint challenging the validity of an amended rule of the state House of Representatives, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing because the plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that he suffered or likely will suffer any personal harm as a result of a violation of any legal duty owed to him.
Corporate – Judicial estoppel – Shareholder action
Where a plaintiff has alleged that two attorneys and their law firm assisted in a corporate freeze-out, the plaintiff’s claims are barred by judicial estoppel in light of the position taken by the plaintiff in a prior shareholder action.
Insurance – Discovery
Where plaintiffs alleging that the defendant delivered heating oil containing what they contend were excessive amounts of biodiesel have moved to compel production of the defendant’s insurance policies, the motion should be allowed because the defendant has mustered no argument why it may withhold those policies.
Civil practice – Reconsideration – Summary judgment
Where a defendant has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of an award of summary judgment, that motion should be denied because the defendant has presented no evidence or argument that could not have been presented prior to summary judgment being entered.
Civil practice – Default – Discovery violations
Where two defendants have deliberately violated a court order to produce certain categories of documents, the defendants should be defaulted as a sanction.
