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.

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.

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