Experience
Verrill Attorneys Secure Landmark Victory in Anti-SLAPP Defense Against Business Competitors
Verrill attorneys were victorious in defending against a special motion to dismiss filed by business competitors in a case with claims for unfair and deceptive business practices and abuse of process. Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., 493 Mass. 539 (2024). The SJC used the case to clarify and simplify the legal framework that Massachusetts Courts use for evaluating a special motion to dismiss filed under the Anti-SLAPP Statute. The SJC has been focused on refining this standard for several decades and has successfully provided clear guidance on the analysis required by the Anti-SLAPP Statute for reviewing a special motion to dismiss.
Successful Representation of Insurer before U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
Verrill successfully represented an insurer before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in an insurance coverage matter alleging that the insurer improperly denied a defense and indemnification to a landlord under a homeowner’s policy. The landlord was sued for invading his tenant’s privacy. The District Court entered summary judgment for the insurer. The Court determined that the landlord’s actions and the tenant’s ensuing emotional distress were not an “accident” giving rise to a covered “occurrence” under the policy. In addition, the insured’s conduct fell within the policy’s exclusion for injuries “intended or reasonably expected” by the insured. In so holding, the District Court rejected plaintiff’s argument the landlord never intended for the tenant to be harmed by his conduct because he never expected that the tenant would discover the invasion of privacy. The Court concluded, based on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, that the landlord “either actually intended or should have reasonably expected” that his conduct would cause harm to the tenant. The Court ultimately determined that the insurer had neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify the insured.
Niles v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2:21-cv-265 (D. Maine)
Elections and Constitutional Law: Successfully Challenged Certification of Initiative Petition
In a victory for consumers and the ride-hailing public, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently barred the Secretary of State from placing on the November ballot initiative petitions proposed by companies such as Uber, Lyft, and Doordash that sought to insulate them from liability for automobile accidents and other wrongs committed by their drivers. The consumers were represented by Thomas Bean and Sarah Grossnickle from Verrill Dana LLP and M. Patrick Moore from Hemenway & Barnes LLP.
The Court held that the initiative petitions did not meet the requirement in Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution that ballot questions to include only subjects “which are related or which are mutually dependent.” The Court held that the petitions failed the “related subjects” requirement because they contained “at least two substantively distinct policy decisions.” The initiative petitions sought to classify drivers for rideshare and delivery companies as independent contractors and provide certain minimum compensation and benefits. But “buried in obscure language at the end of the petitions” were provisions that also narrowed the scope of tort recovery for third parties, including those who may have been injured in traffic accidents caused by the negligence of app-based drivers, or even sexually assaulted by them.
The Court noted that voters may “strongly approve of better wages and benefits for drivers struggling to make ends meet in the gig economy, but at the same time strongly oppose limiting their own rights to recover money damages from network companies if the tortious actions of drivers who provide services through those companies’ platforms cause them injury.” The Court concluded, “[p]etitions that bury separate policy decisions in obscure language heighten concerns that voters will be confused, misled, and deprived of a meaningful choice -- the very concerns that underlie art. 48's related subjects requirement.”
The decision is El Koussa v. Attorney General, Mass., No. SJC-13237.
Notable Experience
- Argued and won case at the Supreme Judicial Court regarding the extension of deadlines under the Wetlands Protection Act and establishing standard of review for Enforcement Orders.
- Handled and won multiple cases at the Appeals Court including case in which the Appeals Court upheld a tuition award against a student who did not have residency in the district while attending the public school and a case in which the Appeals Court upheld the zoning decision of a local board.
