Neil Sugarman, Principal

Neil Sugarman, founder and principal, concentrates in the areas of products liability, medical malpractice, construction site accidents, admiralty, and complex personal injury lawsuits. Over the course of his 40-year career, Neil has successfully handled some of the most catastrophic explosion and fire accident cases in Massachusetts, many involving multiple victims. In addition, he has successfully argued leading appellate cases involving the expansion of personal injury law and consumer rights.

A frequent lecturer and published writer, Neil has held executive and leadership positions with every major legal association in Massachusetts. In addition, he is on the Advisory Board of the N. Neal Pike Institute on Law and Disability at Boston University School of Law, is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, is a past president of the Boston University School of Law Alumni Association, and is a past president of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys.

Neil has been a principal of the firm since 1967. Neil was a Captain in the U.S. Army Signal Corp and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal in the Vietnam conflict.

 

Selected Cases

Worker changing billboard advertisement falls,  Settlement for a worker who fell 20 feet, resulting in partial amputation of left arm and leg.

Sodium explosion,  Settlement in a negligence and product liability case against a Newton chemical company for eleven firefighters were injured as a result of a sodium explosion at the company.

School bus crash,  Settlement in a negligence and product liability case against a transportation company and bus manufacturer following the deaths of four middle school students on a school trip in Canada.

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.

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.

Maillet v. ATF-Davidson Co., 407 Mass. 185 (1990),  Jury verdict for a worker whose hand was injured in a press. The verdict was upheld on appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that negligence and breach of warranty by a product manufacturer was a violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute (G. L. 93A, § 9(4)).

Food poisoning at wedding reception,  Settlement for 37 guests (including the bride) who suffered food poisoning as a result of contaminated berries served at dessert.

Craneway collapse at Fore River Shipyard,  Settlement for the four young children of a construction worker who was killed when a massive steel craneway collapsed. The general contractor failed to develop an engineering or demolition plan for the dismantling of the craneway and made cuts to the craneway that left a portion of it a free standing structure without securing the it or warning any of the workers at the site of the danger posed by the free standing structure.

Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 403 Mass. 50 (1988),  A jury verdict in favor of a worker injured by a defective machine was affirmed on appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court even though the jury also found that the worker’s use of the machine was unreasonable where the manufacturer of the machine was negligent in its design.

Related News

Seven Partners from SUGARMAN Selected as Best Lawyers and SUGARMAN is featured in the Boston’s Best Lawyers Publication

Neil Sugarman Named as the Boston Best Lawyers Product Liability Litigator of the Year 2010

Nine Sugarman Lawyers Named as Top Attorneys in Massachusetts and New England: Selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers & Rising Stars 2009

Six Partners From Sugarman Selected as Boston’s Best Lawyers

Neil Sugarman Testifies Before the Joint Transportation Committee

Neil Sugarman Receives American Bar Association Pursuit of Justice Award

Nine Sugarman Lawyers Named as Top Attorneys