A sampling of recent interlocutory orders obtained by members of the firm include:

Boyd v. Cooperative Reserve Supply, Inc. v. FL Larson Trucking, Inc., Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2011-0313 (Decision November 9, 2011) (Budd, J.)

Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff defeated motion for summary judgment brought by third party Defendant who owned a flat bed trailer involved in an incident that occurred during the unloading of a shipment of commercial goods from that flat bed trailer. Moving party alleged that the load was under the control of an independent contractor over whom it had no control. In denying summary judgment, the court concluded that whether the party controlling the load was an independent contractor was a question of fact and further concluded that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act, 49 C.F.R. §390.5, 391.5, 391.13 and 393.100 eliminates an independent contractor defense for motor carriers that lease trailers to third parties.

Sackett v. One Beacon Insurance et al, Nantucket Superior Court, 2004-00058 (Decision 9/15/2011) (Chin, J.)

Judgment obtained for Defendant mold remediation contractor after flooding incidents occurred inside a luxury vacation home on Nantucket Island. The Defendant mold remediation contractor was retained by the homeowner and /or their insurer to perform specified cleaning services. The contractor was not retained to evaluate the extent of the mold problem or to prepare a mold remediation protocol. Summary judgment was granted because the undisputed material facts establish that Defendant performed all services within the scope of its agreement in a good and workmanlike manner and contractor had no legal or contractual duty to do more.

Esalon, Inc. v. Hoffman, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No.: 10-00766 (Nickerson, J.)

Judgment granted to Defendant, a former employee, at will of Plaintiff corporation that operated a luxury salon and spa. Defendant’s post-employment conduct in connection with opening a competing salon business did not constitute theft of trade secrets; did not breach any contract; did not breach a duty of good faith and fair dealing or loyalty; and did not constitute conversion.

Romagnole v. Keefe, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2010-00031 (Decision 6/13/2011)(Rufo, J.)

Judgment granted to owner of rental premises on claims of alleged negligent failure to manage rental premises in a safe manner and for alleged breach of the warranty of habitability flowing from an attack on tenant by intruders at the rental premises.

Lon Sherman et al v. Mark Shub, et al, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2007-2547-BLS1 (Decision 6/15/2011) ((Lauriat, J.)

Judgment obtained for Defendant attorney in an action against attorneys and others alleging a failure to properly draft insurance trusts and related documents that Plaintiffs alleged would result in increased estate tax and gift tax liability in the future. Defendants contended that estate and gift taxes are capable of calculation only at the time of Plaintiffs’ death and are subject to a host of variables that were unknown and unknowable. The Plaintiffs were alive at the time of the litigation. The court held that any claimed damages that Plaintiffs might suffer at the time of their future deaths were speculative and not actionable.

Arra v. Town of Chatham et al, Barnstable Superior Court, 2007-00418. (Decision 1/6/2011)(Quinlan, J.)

Judgment obtained on behalf of Third Party Defendant construction contractor who was alleged to be responsible for negligent construction of some portion of the Chatham Fish Pier observation deck and stairs.

Hayden Building Movers, Inc. v. American International Group, et al., Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2008-00828 (Decision October 28, 2010) (Quinlan, J.)

Judgment obtained for an insured building moving company in this declaratory judgment action brought against insured’s commercial general liability carrier. The company’s insurers refused to defend it in a lawsuit each contending that the other insurer was the responsible carrier. The court interpreted the mobile equipment exclusion of the commercial auto policy, as well as the “auto” exclusion in the CGL policy. The court held that the CGL carrier was the responsible carrier and had wrongfully contended that a mobile crane was an “auto” that should be covered under the insured commercial automobile policy. The CGL carrier was ordered to defend the insured company and pay attorney fees and costs both in this coverage litigation and in related bodily injury litigation that had been commenced against the insured.