Verdicts by Attorney: Michienzie, Paul

Brandon, Adam C; Michienzie, Paul

Keches Law Group (Jonathan D. Sweet and Patrick J. Nelligan)

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Junior Partner, Adam C. Brandon successfully argued for dismissal of all claims against our client, Everett Property, LLC (“EPL”) in the premises liability / personal injury matter styled Bernabe and Humberto v. Everett Property, LLC, et al. pending in Essex Superior Court, MA. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were injured while moving heavy panes of glass into a warehouse leased by EPL. The thrust of our argument for dismissal was that as lessee of the warehouse, EPL did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs to prevent injury under the circumstances alleged because the instrumentality of the alleged harm was unrelated to any feature of the premises, i.e. property structure or grounds. Notably, the Court’s 6 page order not only granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, but denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend their complaint to assert a basis for liability against Everett Property, LLC absent the discovery of factual support to do so.  Plaintiffs’ action continues against the remaining and separately represented general contractor and subcontractor at the warehouse site. Read More.

Michienzie, Paul; Caron, Jason

Dismissal

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Senior Partner, Jason Caron successfully argued for dismissal of multi-million dollar loss of consortium claims against our client, Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. (“Bucher”) in the products liability/personal injury matter styled Michael Whitney et al. v. Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. pending in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Mr. Whitney’s wife, Jillian Whitney, was entitled to recovery for loss of consortium against Bucher, due to injuries Mr. Whitney allegedly suffered while operating a sewer cleaning truck sold by Bucher.  Mrs. Whitney’s claims were based on two distinct legal theories: one, that Mrs. Whitney had a viable loss of consortium claim based on Mr. Whitney’s underlying claim under M.G.L. Chapter 93A for alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices; two, that Mrs. Whitney could bring a direct claim as an injured party under Chapter 93A, separate and distinct from Mr. Whitney’s claim.  As to the first theory, our position was that under Massachusetts law, a loss of consortium claim must be based upon an underlying tort claim by the injured spouse, and that Chapter 93A, while tort-like in certain respects, does not qualify for that purpose.  As to the second, we argued that Mrs. Bucher lacks standing to bring an independent claim under 93A, because loss of consortium damages have never been recognized by a Massachusetts court as an independent category of damages.  After extensive briefing, the Court agreed with us on both points, dismissing Mrs. Whitney’s loss of consortium claims in their entirety. Read More.