Posts tagged "Dedham"

Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Group (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-171-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11561   BARRON CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION, P.C.  vs.  NORFOLK & DEDHAM GROUP. Norfolk.     May 5, 2014. – October 15, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.[1]     Insurance, Motor vehicle personal injury protection benefits, Unfair act or practice.  Contract, Insurance.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Attorney’s fees.  Consumer Protection Act, Insurance.       Civil action commenced in the Dedham Division of the District Court Department on November 25, 2009.   The case was heard by James J. McGovern, J., on a motion for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Francis A. Gaimari (Robert N. Fireman & Stephen B. Byers with him) for the plaintiff. Joseph R. Ciollo (Michael L. Snyder with him) for the defendant. E. Michael Sloman, for Automobile Insurers Bureau, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Christopher M. Moutain, for American Insurance Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     LENK, J.  The personal injury protection (PIP) provision of the automobile insurance statute permits an unpaid party to bring an action for breach of contract against an automobile insurer if the latter has not paid PIP benefits for more than thirty days after those benefits became due and payable.  G. L. c. 90, § 34M, fourth par.  If the unpaid party receives a judgment for any amount due and payable by the insurer, it also may recover its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.  The primary question before us is whether an unpaid party who has brought suit and thereafter refused the insurer’s tender of amounts due and payable, made prior to the entry of judgment, may proceed with the suit and, if successful, obtain a judgment for those amounts as well as its costs and attorney’s fees.  We conclude that it may proceed with the action under G. L. c. 90, § 34M. 1.  Background.  The plaintiff, Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. (Barron), provided chiropractic services to Nicole Jean-Pierre following her automobile accident on August 20, 2008.  Jean-Pierre was injured while driving a vehicle insured by the defendant Norfolk & Dedham Group (Norfolk) pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 34A, which requires compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance, including PIP benefits.[2]  See G. L. c. 90, §§ 34A, 34M. Norfolk received notice of the accident on August 22, 2008, and, on October 10, 2008, received Jean-Pierre’s application for PIP benefits.[3] Shortly thereafter, pursuant to its contractual right […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 15, 2014 at 8:00 pm

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

Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. National Continental Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-099-13)

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, Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       12‑P‑1207                                       Appeals Court   NORFOLK & DEDHAM MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY  vs.  NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.       No. 12‑P‑1207.      August 14, 2013.     Insurance, Motor vehicle insurance, Notice, Cancellation.  Motor Vehicle, Insurance.  Registrar of Motor Vehicles.  Notice, Cancellation of insurance.       The question is whether the defendant, National Continental Insurance Company (National), “immediately upon the intended effective date of the cancellation of [an automobile insurance] policy . . . forwarded to the registrar of motor vehicles a notice, in such form as he may prescribe, containing such information to apprise the registrar of the particular motor vehicle registration on which the insurance is intended to be cancelled.”[1]  G. L. c. 175, § 113A(2), as amended by St. 1990, c. 287, § 1.     The facts are these:[2]  National issued a commercial automobile policy to Genivaldo DeSousa on March 7, 2009.[3]  On October 13, 2009, National notified DeSousa that the policy would be canceled effective November 3, 2009, at 12:01 A.M. for nonpayment of premiums.[4]  DeSousa did not pay.  On November 4, 2009, therefore, National notified DeSousa that his policy had been canceled as previously warned.  Two days later, on November 6, 2009, National electronically notified the registry of motor vehicles (RMV) (in a form known as a send report) that DeSousa’s policy had been canceled effective November 3, 2009.  The send report was in the form prescribed by the RMV in the sense that it supplied all the information required by the RMV including, among other things, the correct policy number, vehicle identification number, and license plate number.  However, it incorrectly identified DeSousa as a corporation rather than as an individual.[5]  Three days later, on November 9, 2009, the RMV electronically notified National of the error (in a form known as a return report).  On November 17, 2009, National sent a second send report correctly identifying DeSousa as an individual.  The RMV accepted the corrected send report that same day and accepted the cancellation of DeSousa’s policy effective November 3, 2009.[6]   A few weeks later, on December 7, 2009, DeSousa was in an accident with Eddy Guillaume, who was insured by the plaintiff, Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Norfolk & Dedham).   Norfolk & Dedham brought the underlying action, pursuant to G. L. c. 175, § 113, and G. L. c. 214, § 3(9), to reach and apply National’s policy in payment […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 17, 2013 at 10:04 am

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

Baby Kittens Found on West Dedham Street

Three tiny kittens were rescued from a South End back yard on Sunday. A family first discovered the kittens a few days ago in their West Dedham Street backyard, then called in the Animal Rescue League of Boston. “They weren’t able to find the mom, so they felt the best thing to do was bring them to us so they could be provided with around-the-clock care in a foster home,” Animal Rescue League said in a Facebook post. The kittens are only two weeks old, so they are getting bottle feedings eery three hours, said the ARL. “These babies are currently shacking up with one of our most experienced foster-parents beause they are unable to eat on their own,” the ARL wrote. “We sure are lucky to have such fabulous foster-parents at the League!” SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,