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.

We were engaged to assist our client. We alleged unfair and deceptive business practices and demanded that the dealership replace the insured’s vehicle. The dealership, after some negotiation, agreed to replace the vehicle at no additional cost to our client.

We engaged an engineer to evaluate whether the table met the applicable BIFMA standard for pub-height tables and were able to demonstrate that the table failed at one quarter the required resistance. We monitored our client’s progress over several years until he had reached a medical end result and were able to resolve his claims prior to filing a lawsuit through a substantial settlement with the insurers for the table manufacturer, the table distributer, and the entertainment venue.

As litigators, we understand that most often a cost-effective resolution is preferable to protracted litigation.

We were able to secure an expert to counter the insurer’s claims and obtain a settlement on behalf of our client that substantially exceeded the agreed value of the vessel, as we demonstrated that the insured had engaged in bad faith in the business of insurance proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93A §9 and ch. 176D §3(9). This settlement was reached in advance of trial.

If you have suffered a financial loss, you may be entitled to recover compensation even if your insurer has denied you coverage. Read our page on insurance coverage disputes or contact McGowan & Associates for a free legal consultation at 781-261-9977.

We were engaged to assist our client in the prosecution of claims against the contractors involved in the project and the engineer who oversaw the work. We were able to establish that the structure was indeed settling and were able to obtain a substantial pre-suit settlement on behalf of our client that allowed her to fund remedial work to shore the structure and allow her to remain in her home.

Our client was never informed about the risks associated with this application and endured great pain from the chemical burns. Ultimately, this incident resulted in permanent scarring and permanent hair loss in the affected area. Our client had to endure extensive treatment and understandably endured great mental and emotional discomfort.

We were able to reach a substantial settlement with the salon’s insurer on our client’s behalf. We were also able to negotiate with Medicare to reduce the amount of her lien.

If you have suffered a chemical burn due to someone’s negligence, learn your legal rights. Read our page on burn injuries and contact McGowan & Associates for a free legal consultation. Our attorneys have extensive experience representing clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries and burns. Contact us today at 781-261-9977 or use our contact form.

Our client was unable to participate in a summer program during her period of convalescence and developed significant scarring from her injuries. Her scarring was visible with hyperpigmentation and this caused her to wear long skirts even in the summer to conceal her scarring, and while she had been an avid bicyclist, she lost her confidence to take to the road.

We assembled medical records and assisted our client in finding a plastic surgeon who could discuss various revision options with our client. We then prepared a demand to the inattentive driver, explaining why she was liable to our client and explaining how the incent had impacted our client. The Driver’s insurer first sought to dispute liability and damages, but we were able to line up witnesses to confirm the fault of the driver. We then secured a report from the plastic surgeon that explained the different revision options to make the scarring less visible. We were able to negotiate a significant settlement for our client without the need to file a lawsuit.

We prepared a demand on our client’s behalf that demonstrated that the manner in which the doorway opened into the aisleway is a violation of the Massachusetts Building Code, 780 CMR 1005.2 which forbids such encroachment. We further showed that the caution signage was not visible to patrons in the aisleway until the door was opened into them, rendering the warning useless. The insurer changed its position on liability and agreed to negotiate a settlement.

Over the course of the next several months, we were able to secure and present out client’s medical bills and reach a settlement with the restaurant’s insurer. We were also able to work with Medicare to reduce the amount of the lien that our client had to pay back, in order that he could have more money in his pocket. Finally, the restaurant changed the doorway to swing into the room as opposed to out into the aisleway, foreclosing the risk of this happening to anyone else.

If you have been injured by unsafe conditions on someone’s property, learn your legal rights. Read more about premises liability laws.

The insurance company for the drunk driver refused to pay for her medical bills and denied her claim for property damage, claiming that she was at fault for the car accident as she was in the process of making a turn when her vehicle was struck. We obtained the police report and determined the driver had a blood alcohol percentage that was twice the legal limit and was charged with reckless operation. We obtained the record from the criminal proceeding and determined that the drunk driver had run a red-light seconds before the crash and had traveled through the intersection at over 40MPH. We also tracked down the eyewitness and obtained a statement form her. Using this information, we obtained an out-of-court settlement from the bar which had overserved the drunk driver.

We then filed suit against the drunk driver and his insurer, alleging the insurance company violated G.L. ch. 93A and ch. 176D by failing to conduct a reasonable and thorough investigation. The insurance company ultimately capitulated regarding liability and paid a substantial settlement on behalf of the drunk driver and to avoid the potential for an award of multiple damages at trial.

McGowan & Associates specializes in representing individuals injured in car accidents on the South Shore, Plymouth County and across Massachusetts. Learn your legal rights if you have been injured by a negligent or drunk driver in Massachusetts.

Her insurance company said that it was too late to advance claims, but our research uncovered mistakes in the claim handling process and we communicated that the insurer had not conducted a reasonable investigation as is required by law. In Massachusetts, the statute of limitations is four years for any consumer protection action including insurance actions. We therefore advanced claims in the Superior Court pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93A §9 and ch. 176D §3(9), for the insurer’s bad faith and unfair and deceptive insurance claim settlement practices. The insurer quickly settled to avoid the mistakes that were made being exposed, and a judgment in our client’s favor.

If you have a property claims with your insurance company, it is important to have counsel that understand the timeframe within which a suit may be brought, as insurance policies often limit claims to a two years window. However, even if contractual claims are barred by the insurance policy, conduct prohibited in G.L. ch. 176D is not merely “duplicative” of ordinary breach of contract claims based on the insurance policy. To the contrary, when an insurance company engages in the conduct that is proscribed by G. L. ch. 176D, and is made unfair and deceptive by G. L. c. 93A, §9, that creates a cause of action that lies entirely independent from the contract (or restrictions therein).

When property damage occurs, it is important to understand your rights under and outside of an insurance contract and McGowan & Associates is available to assist South Shore residents who need guidance in the property damage claims process. Read more about our work representing clients in insurance bad faith and insurance coverage disputes on the South Shore and across Massachusetts.

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