Posts tagged "Companies"

Rass Corporation v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-163-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-358                                        Appeals Court   RASS CORPORATION  vs.  THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., & another.[1]     No. 15-P-358.   Suffolk.     February 24, 2016. – November 10, 2016.   Present:  Katzmann, Maldonado, & Blake, JJ.[2]     Insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend, Notice, Settlement of claim, Unfair act or practice.  Notice, Insurance claim.  Commercial Disparagement.  Trade Secret. Libel and Slander.  Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Unfair act or practice, Offer of settlement, Damages, Attorney’s fees.  Damages, Libel, Wrongful use of trade secret, Consumer protection case, Attorney’s fees.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 7, 2010.   Motions for summary judgment were heard by Janet L. Sanders, J., and the case was heard by her.     Anil Madan for the plaintiff. Michael F. Aylward for the defendants.     BLAKE, J.  At issue in the present case is whether the defendant insurance companies, The Travelers Companies, Inc., and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (collectively Travelers), breached their duties to defend, indemnify, and settle in good faith, as to their insured, the plaintiff, Rass Corporation (Rass).  The underlying action, arising out of Rass’s decision to cut the underlying plaintiff out of its food marketing and distribution business, alleged that Rass’s principal had committed trade libel, defamation, and misappropriation of trade secrets.  After a three-month delay in notice, Travelers agreed to defend the case from that point forward under a reservation of rights that disclaimed coverage of the trade secrets claim, and subject to Traveler’s limit on defense counsel’s hourly rate.  Rass ultimately settled the case on its own, refusing the insurer’s offer to contribute a nominal amount conditioned on a waiver of Rass’s right to seek indemnification.  Thereafter, Rass commenced the present action against Travelers, seeking indemnity for the settlement and the reasonable attorney’s fees left unpaid by Travelers, and alleging violations of G. L. c. 93A. Following a bench trial in the Superior Court, the judge allocated $ 140,000 of the settlement to Travelers for indemnification of the covered claims and found that Travelers owed an additional $ 25,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees.  The judge also found that Travelers had committed violations of G. L. c. 93A based on its commission of unfair claim settlement practices.  In a summary judgment ruling issued prior to trial, the judge rejected Rass’s claim for attorney’s fees incurred prior to its notice of the […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Insurance Companies (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-093-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   14-P-422                                        Appeals Court   MORONEY BODY WORKS, INC.  vs.  CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANIES. No. 14-P-422. Worcester.     January 12, 2015. – August 6, 2015.   Present:  Fecteau, Wolohojian, & Massing, JJ.     Insurance, Fire, Property damage, Construction of policy, Coverage, Amount of recovery for loss.  Contract, Insurance.  Damages, Breach of contract, Repairs.  Practice, Civil, Damages.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 13, 2012.   The case was heard by Richard T. Tucker, J., on motions for summary judgment.     William A. Schneider for the defendant. David K. McCay for the plaintiff.        WOLOHOJIAN, J.  We consider whether a commercial property insurance policy issued by Central Insurance Companies (Central) provides coverage and, if so, to what extent, for damage to a bookmobile caused by a fire at its insured, Moroney Body Works, Inc. (Moroney).  Central relies principally on two provisions of its policy to support its denial of coverage.  First, it contends that the “other insurance” provision means that Central’s coverage does not come into play until the policy limit of a Massachusetts garage insurance policy issued to Moroney by Pilgrim Insurance Company (Pilgrim) is exhausted.[1]  Second, Central argues, in the alternative, that its liability is limited to the cost of repairing the bookmobile.  We conclude that because the two policies insured the same interest in the same property against the same risk, Central’s “other insurance” provision applies.  We also conclude that the “loss payment” provision of Central’s policy limits its liability, at its election, to the cost of repair.  We accordingly reverse the summary judgment in favor of Moroney on its breach of contract claim. 1.  Background.  The facts are undisputed.  Moroney manufactures specialized truck bodies in Worcester.  On April 7, 2011, a fire began in one vehicle at Moroney’s facility and spread to a custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed for the city of Beverly (city).  The city refused to accept delivery of the bookmobile after the fire. Moroney had two insurance policies at the time of the fire: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim.  Moroney demanded payment under both.  Central denied liability.  Pilgrim’s policy provided primary coverage, and Pilgrim agreed that its policy covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile.  It paid $ 12,449.82 based on its appraiser’s estimate of […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 6, 2015 at 8:25 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Top 10 Companies Hiring This Week

Provided by By Mariya Pylayev  A job search can get quite frustrating these days, with so many people competing for too few openings. To ease the burden, AOL Jobs tracked down the 10 top companies that are hiring this week. From sales jobs to finance positions, full-time to part-time, these employers have a plethora of openings they’re looking to fill. Good luck job hunting! 1. Petco Jobs: 10,983 openings. Petco isn’t just where the pets go; it’s also a place for many new hires. The pet supplies store continues to expand and is the perfect place for lovers of our furry, feathered and scaly friends. Employee Review: “I met some great people and work with even more amazing people. The management was fantastic. I was paid fairly and had reasonable hours. I also was able to work around my school schedule which helped me pay for tuition. Plus, who doesn’t like getting to play with puppies every Saturday?”* If you’re looking for a job in the South End, check out our jobs page. 2. Pizza Hut Jobs: 6,162 openings. Pizza Hut continues to expand, adding new locations nationwide. For those with a knack for customer-service-with-a-smile, these jobs could be for you. Work in the store, or behind the wheel as a delivery driver. Employee Review: “Decent hours, fun working environment, challenging (but not too much), rewarding, quick training (I was cross-trained, so I could fill any role necessary).”* 3. UnitedHealth Group Jobs: 4,467 openings. UnitedHealth Group currently provides health insurance services to more than 75 million people worldwide. Employee Review: “Good, steady work. Great learning opportunities. Very little favoritism, you get ahead based on your own work. Work at home opportunities help on commuting costs. Great work-life balance, ample vacation time.”* 4. Winn-Dixie Jobs: 4,005 openings. Winn-Dixie is a supermarket chain based in Jacksonville, Florida. Although it went through some rough times recently, the company looks to be back on its feet and has ramped up hiring. Employee Review: “Benefits 401k, life, vacation, weekly pay. Chance for promotions from within. Company paid parties on holidays. Management cares about employees safety.”* 5. Vector Marketing Jobs: 3,753 openings. Vector Marketing is the domestic sales arm of a knife-making company. People looking for sales jobs, but have little experience: this one’s for you! Employee Review: “The pay, flexibility, environment were all outstanding.”* 6. Firestone Complete Auto Care Jobs: 2,971 openings. Firestone Complete Auto Care is a car maintenance company with over 1,600 locations nationwide. Whether you’re mechanically inclined or would rather work on the retail side of things, they could have the job for you. Employee Review: “Higher than average compensation for retail, good camaraderie with co workers. Nice working for large company that you know will be there tomorrow. “* 7. Macy’s Jobs: 2,297 openings. […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 14, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , ,