I remain in close contact with the family.  Tragically, the minor died in part due to his injuries. I provided assistance to the family after the plaintiff’s death and was able to convince the structured settlement insurer to release the funds still in the structured settlement to the family outright, without penalty.

The insurer, Safety, gave low-ball offer to Mr. Nunes, with a top offer of $140,000.

Mr. McGowan tried the case along with Frank Middleton in October of 2024 and the verdict, with interest, ended up with payment to Mr. Nunes of $7,100,000. As reported in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, this was the 5^th largest verdict in Massachusetts in 2024 and is believed to be one of the largest Plymouth County verdicts ever. A bad faith action against the insurer for their low-ball tactics is pending in Plymouth County.

The client, where she first met with us was living in the basement of the ruined property and was without any resources to rebuild her home.  This case was incredibly gratifying in that Ms. Slater truly was an innocent party to this debacle.  Ironically, a Supreme Judicial Court Decision, Western Alliance Insurance Company v. Gill, 426 Mass. 115 (1997) was significant in the outcome.  I argued the Western Alliance case before the SJC.  I had prevailed on summary judgment at the Superior Court level; the matter was appealed and the SJC reversed the decision of the Superior Court finding that the absolute pollution exclusion did not apply to fumes emitted from a Tandoori oven in the context of a patron who was injured at an Indian restaurant. Although the decision in the Western Alliance case was a disappointment at the time, I have had the opportunity to use this decision effectively when representing policyholders against their insurers on the issue of the reasonable expectations of an insured when they purchase a policy of insurance.

With respect to claims for money damages, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) agreed by way of a July 17, 2019 Order to implement a change (increase) in the amount-in-controversy requirement for civil cases in Massachusetts, which has not been changed in Massachusetts since 1986. For Superior Court actions, General Laws c. 212, § 3, as amended by St. 2004, c. 252, § 2, has provided in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided by law, the court shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions for money damages. The actions may proceed in the court only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control.”

As a result of the impending change, as of January 1, 2020 the Superior Courts of Massachusetts now will only accept case with damages likely to be over $50,000. The maximum procedural amount for civil actions in the District Courts and Boston Municipal Court will correspondingly increase to $50,000.

Note that with respect to claims seeking equitable remedies, General Laws c. 214, § 1, grants the Superior Court “original and concurrent jurisdiction (with the SJC) of all cases and matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence”. This remains unchanged.

IMPLICATIONS

If you are contemplating bringing a lawsuit that seeks money damages in the Superior Court, and the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000, this may be a good time to confer with an attorney to determine whether you should file suit sooner rather than later.

The short-term effect of this Order is likely to dramatically increase the number of civil cases that are heard in the District Court Department. It remains to be seen how the District Court Department will administratively handle such an influx of new cases, given that the jurisdictional limit for cases involving claims seeking money damages is about to double.

Read more.

In August of 2019, Jake Lavin obtained a verdict in favor of a landlord who was accused of failing to properly remove ice from its property in Dorchester, Massachusetts, allegedly causing the plaintiff to sustain a fractured ankle. The defense presented the testimony of the landlord and two employees of the snow removal contractor who were present at the property the morning of the alleged accident. After listening to the testimony regarding the process followed by the landlord and the contractors for removal of snow and ice at the property following snowstorms, the jury found that the landlord was not negligent and, therefore, not liable to the plaintiff for her alleged injuries.

January 2019

Owen McGowan recently resolved a personal injury lawsuit that was initiated in the Massachusetts State Court system several years ago and was transferred into federal multi-district litigation involving the motor vehicle manufacturer. The case involved a motor vehicle accident and severe personal injuries sustained by our Massachusetts client due to a motor vehicle component defect. McGowan & Associates obtained a settlement in this automotive defect case that totaled $1.75 Million Dollars on behalf of our client. This settlement in the complex area of law often referred to as “uncrashworthy vehicle” cases was the successful result of the firm’s investment in expert analysis that helped prove the defect was the cause of avoidable injuries. We are proud that this settlement sends a strong message about consumer and vehicle safety to the Automotive Industry.

February 2019

Appeals Court affirms Jury Verdict following Jake Lavin’s Arguments

On October 1, 2018, Jake Lavin argued before the Appeals Court, on issues raised by the Plaintiff as to the propriety of certain jury instructions that were given by the Superior Court in a matter where McGowan & Associates had obtained a defense verdict for a Plaintiff/Homeowner when a roofing subcontractor that was not wearing proper fall protection fell from a roof in Revere, Massachusetts and sustained injuries. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment on jury verdict on February 28, 2019 for the Defendant homeowners.

April 2019

The Application of the Statute of Repose was clarified in a decision that barred late claims advanced against our client (door installation subcontractor)

On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit sought to amend his complaint to add our client, a commercial door installer that performed an installation at an industrial complex in 2011, to a lawsuit that arose from alleged personal injuries caused when a door closing device detached and struck him. McGowan & Associates opposed the amendment as futile and time barred.

On March 28, 2019, Christopher Greeley (who has held an unrestricted construction supervisors license since 2003) argued in the Superior Court that any cause of action arising out of the installation of the door or door closing device by our client (subcontractor) in 2011 was barred by the six-year statute of repose. G. L. c. 260, § 2B, and that the relation back doctrine, applicable to general statutes of limitations, G. L. c. 231, §51, is not applicable to the statute of repose. The Plaintiff argued that that because the door was a “standard commercial” door and the door closing device came with installation instructions, there was nothing special about the installation to suggest individualized expertise, when in reality the contractor was a skilled and specialized subcontractor retained specifically to install doors. Persuasive authority was provided by both sides.

On April 3, 2019, the Superior Court issues a seven-page decision denying the proposed amendment to add the contractor, distinguishing the cases that were offered by the Plaintiff. The court held that the installation of the mass produced commercial door and door closing device by the subcontractor in 2011 was nonetheless an improvement for purposes of the statute of repose, as it was a betterment of real property designed to make the property more useful, as distinguished from an ordinary repair, and further indicated that the proposed amended complaint did not plausibly suggest a viable cause of action against the contractor, and the plaintiffs would stand no reasonable expectation of proving at trial that the installation of the commercial door and closing device, as part of a much larger improvements project, would not be construed as an improvement within the meaning of the statute of repose.

A copy of the decision is attached.

The Plaintiff alleged injuries to his neck and back, and sued the Defendant owners of the dwelling as well as the roofing contractor for negligence. The roofer conceded liability due to a lack of appropriate fall protection, and settled with the Plaintiff before the trial.

The trial proceeded against the owners only. The Plaintiff alleged that the owners had hired the roofer to replace the roof, including over the porch. The Plaintiff alleged that the owners were the project’s general contractor and supervisor, and had failed to properly maintain the roof in a reasonably safe condition and also failed to properly supervise the construction and negligent installation of the porch roof decades before. The Plaintiff argued that the porch roof collapsed when he stood on it to make some routine repairs.

The defense did not actively dispute the Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and instead focused on the question of liability for the claimed damages. The owners argued that they could not be liable for the alleged negligent construction and installation of the property’s porch roof, which occurred several decades before. The owners also argued that they could not be held liable for any role they may have played as contractor or supervisor of the work on the porch roof.

Deliberating for only two hours, the jury found in favor of the owners and a defense verdict was entered. On October 1, 2018, Jacob Lavin argued before the Appeals Court, on issues raised by the plaintiff as to the propriety of jury instructions given by the Superior Court.

For more about the case, please click on the below link:
https://verdictsearch.com/verdict/homeowners-denied-liability-for-tenants-fall-through-porch-roof