Reported Cases

Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 391 Mass. 815 (1984)  Jury verdict for 13 year old whose foot was amputated after being run over by MBTA trolley The verdict was affirmed on appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that the defendant waived its defense under G. L. c. 161A, § 21 and that the damages awarded were not excessive.

Monticello Ins. Co. v. Dion, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 46 (2005)  The appeals court upheld the lower court’s ruling on summary judgment that the insurance policy excluded coverage for a worker’s death because her death arose out of operations performed for the insured and she was not a temporary worker.

Morgan v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 816 (2006)  Jury verdict against medical laboratory for negligently reporting test results leading to a patient’s permanent nerve damage. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the medical laboratory’s appeal and affirmed the jury’s verdict won by Sugarman.

Morris v. Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 409 Mass. 179 (1991)  The defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied where the defendants waived immunity under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 (1982 & Supp. III 1985), and under general admiralty law for liability up to $100,000 pursuant to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258, § 2.

Moschella v. City of Quincy, 347 Mass. 80 (1964)  It was not possible to pursue both a bill of exceptions and an appeal as methods of review. The plaintiff was not barred from recovery by the common employment doctrine.

Nna, et al v. American Standard, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 115 (2009)   In an action brought by the widow and injured co-workers of a Massachusetts transportation company employee for a defectively designed warning device (train horn), Sugarman attorneys were able to achieve a settlement on behalf of their clients after the court denied the defendant horn manufacturer’s motion for Summary Judgment, where the manufacturer tried to argue that the horn was not defective and did not play a role in causing the accident.

Quincy Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Quisset Properties, Inc., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 147 (2007)  Sugarman attorneys represented a state trooper who was catastrophically injured when struck by a car registered to Quisset Properties and insured by Quincy Mutual. Quincy Mutual denied coverage for the state trooper’s injury claims on the basis that its insured (Quisset) failed to provided Quincy Mutual with necessary information about its business and, as a result, was in breach of the insurance contract. Sugarman attorneys intervened on behalf of Quisset and successfully argued on appeal that the insurance policy applied. As a result, they were able to obtain a sizable settlement, paid by two insurers including Quincy Mutual, for the state trooper.

Retailers Commercial Agency, Inc., 342 Mass. 515 (1961)  In an action for libel against an agency which produced a credit report to an interested party, where false statements contained in the report were made recklessly, the defendant forfeits its conditional privilege.

Royal Indem. Co. v. Blakely, 372 Mass. 86 (1977)  G. L. c. 175, § 113L which requires that every automobile have coverage for injuries caused by uninsured autos, does not entitle a family to stack its uninsured coverage to obtain additional protection or compensation from vehicles other than the one which was involved in the accident.

Sable v. Meade Johnson & Co., 737 F.Supp. 135 (D. Mass. 1990)  United States District Court decides in favor of injured patient who suffered severe complication from drug manufactured by defendant drug company and allows evidence at trial of post injury warnings ordered by FDA.