Litigation & Trial

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)

• 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.

Represented semiconductor manufacturer in patent case against competitor in litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which both sides asserted patents relating to power management and A-D converters; conducted Markman hearing and obtained favorable construction, leading to the case being settled on favorable terms shortly after fact discovery began.

Represented large provider of IT management solutions in lawsuits in U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Northern District of California against competitor alleging infringement of patents relating to object code instrumentation and misappropriation of trade secrets; took the lead in discovery matters, argued several Daubert motions in court and participated in successful settlement negotiations of all matters shortly before trial.

Defended large telecommunication company in patent litigation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas brought by a competitor over eight patents relating to encryption, unified communications, messaging, and audio and video codecs; filed four petitions for Inter Partes Review with the Patent Office, and obtained institution on all of them; case settled favorably shortly thereafter.

Defended chemical company in patent case involving patents related to termites and animal health, and was heavily involved in expert reports and discovery, as well as Markman and summary judgment motions; obtained favorable claim construction ruling and filed strong summary judgment motion of invalidity, leading to the case being settled hours before argument on summary judgment motion.

Defended company medical device manufacturer against claimed infringement of expired patent relating to laser hair removal; obtained stay of matter pending reexamination of patent, which resulted in cancelling of all allegedly infringing claims and dismissal of case against client.

Defended three major telecommunications companies against patent claims relating to VoIP technology in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; took lead in preparing pretrial filings and assisted with trial witness preparation; case was settled after the third day of trial for a fraction of the original demand.

Defended three telecommunications networking companies in E.D. Tex. against accusation of infringement of patents relating to VoIP technology; lead responsibility for witness who testified at trial about key prior art; case settled the next day for a fraction of the original demand.

Defended national healthcare consulting firm on misappropriation of trade secrets and contract claims brought by competitor in Texas state court; defended against preliminary injunction, argued numerous discovery and pretrial; settled weeks before trial.

Defended multi-platform media company in trademark infringement and unfair competition matter in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; integral member of trial team; obtained complete defense verdict after bench trial.

This case concerned the construction of a marine boat dock on an island in Boston Harbor. The Plaintiff claimed entitlement to unpaid wages and enhanced wages under the federal prevailing wage statute known as the Davis Bacon Act. The Plaintiff sought treble damages and legal fees.

Under the Davis Bacon Act construction workers on federally funded projects must be paid specified wage rates (classified according to each trade and the locale of the project) for time spent on the job site. In this case the Plaintiff argued he was not paid for time spent on the "site of the work" as defined in the statute. He also took the position that since the work of constructing the dock was performed from a barge, workers should be compensated at the federal Davis Bacon rates while the barge was en route to the island where the boat dock was being constructed, in addition to the time spend there with the barge anchored while it served as the work platform. The travel on the barge each day was about 3 hours for a round trip.

There were contested facts as to whether and when the Plaintiff was actually on the work site. There was a legal issue regarding the definition of the "site of the work" whether the mobile barge was the "site of the work" while in transit to the island. If the Plaintiff prevailed on any of his claims it would have opened the door to claims from other construction workers on this same project to file similar suits.

The case was tried before a Maine Superior Court Justice in June 2013. The Court issued a decision in August 2013 finding in favor of our client on all claims.

Our client was the prime contractor for construction of a new clay lined landfill in rural Vermont. The Owner terminated the contractor shortly before substantial completion and filed suit for completion costs. We countersued for wrongful termination and breach of contract. We pursued damages for lost profits on the project, termination costs, and delay damages. The jury found in our client's favor following a three week trial in Burlington. The jury award approximately 90% of the damages claimed for a total of $923,000. [J.A. McDonald v. WSI Moretown Landfill, Inc.]

• Arbitration award of a differing site conditions and delay claim which earned headlines in newspapers for a "KO" of the adverse party.

The Jackson Laboratory, a global leader in genetic research, retained us to assist it with claims arising from construction of its $70 million state-of the art vivarium facility including late completion by its construction manager (CM). The CM alleged that our client interfered with its work by dictating means and methods of construction and sought compensation for project delays and extra work attributed to alleged defects in the plans and specifications put forward by our client's architect and engineers. We took an aggressive approach by filing suit in federal court shortly after completion of the project tackling head on the weak technical arguments put forward by the contractor for its claims for additional compensation. Our approached focus on contractor caused delays and inattention to means and methods of construction. This strategy resulted in an early mediation with a very favorable outcome for our client with a global resolution of the dispute achieved within six months of substantial completion.