Reported Cases

Frost v. Porter Leasing Corp., 386 Mass. 425 (1982)  In the absence of a subrogation agreement, a group insurer which provides medical and hospital expenses does not have a right of subrogation when the insured recovers against a tortfeasor.

Frutin v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 760 F. Supp 234 (D. Mass. 1990)  The United States’ Motion for Summary Judgement was denied in a case involving a mid-air collision because the United States can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for failure to issue a traffic advisory. The trial that followed resulted in an award to our client for a below-the-knee amputation suffered by a student pilot in a mid-air collision caused by a negligent air traffic controller and another pilot.

Gaeta v. National Fire Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 592 (1991)  Pursuant to a court-approved settlement under G. L. c. 152, § 15, the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund cannot avoid its obligation of reimbursing any monies paid by a worker’s compensation insurance company.

Griffin v. General Motors Corp., 380 Mass. 362 (1980)  Jury verdict against General Motors affirmed on appeal where an improperly designed car allowed fumes from engine to enter passenger compartment, explode and severely burn the driver. The Supreme Judicial Court decided that the experiment performed by Sugarman lawyers on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the faulty design could be used against General Motors.

Haidak v. Collagen Corp., 67 F. Supp.2d 21 (D. Mass. 1999)  Product liability claim of injuries from injections of bovine collagen was not pre-empted by Federal pre-market approval process. The decision allowed Sugarman lawyers to proceed with our client’s claim.

Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 575 F. Supp. 254 (D. Mass. 1983) , aff’d, 739 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984)  The statue of limitations is a matter of procedure governed by the law of the forum state.

Hochberg v. Zoecon Corp., 421 Mass. 456 (1995)  Federal law explicitly prohibited states from imposing labeling or packaging requirements that differed from those imposed by the federal law, including for negligence and breach of warranty imposed by state tort law.

Hooper v. Davis-Standard Corp, et al, 482 F. Supp 2d 157 (2007)   After Sugarman Lawyers successfully resolved a product liability action in favor of a machine worker (recovering a substantial settlement from the machine manufacturer), the worker’s employer tried to bring an action against the same manufacturer for its business loss. The machine manufacturer successfully defeated the claims of the employer.

In re an Attorney, 392 Mass. 827 (1984)   A private reprimand was issued to three attorneys who deposited clients’ funds in a commingled account and had used the funds in violation of Rule 3:07, DR 9-102, of the Supreme Judicial Court.

In re an Attorney, 392 Mass. 827 (1984)  A private reprimand was issued to three attorneys who deposited clients’ funds in a commingled account and had used the funds in violation of Rule 3:07, DR 9-102, of the Supreme Judicial Court.