Author Archives: Kyle Rice

Keep on Truckin’: Indiana Applies MCS-90 Endorsement to Intrastate Trips


This entry was posted by on .

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently ruled that, in Indiana, Form MCS-90 endorsements on insurance policies apply to purely intrastate trips, including when the vehicle is on the way to pick up cargo but has not yet done so at the time of an incident. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Cargo - Transportation, Indiana and tagged , , .
Fire

New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents


This entry was posted by on .

Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Anti-Subrogation Rule, Landlord-Tenant, New Hampshire, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , , , .
Community

Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose


This entry was posted by on .

In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Massachusetts, Statute of Limitations-Repose and tagged , , , , .
Gavel

In Nevada, Custom Sign Manufacturers Can Be Held Strictly Liable


This entry was posted by on .

In Schueler v. Ad Art, No. 75688-COA, 2020 Nev. App. LEXIS 6, the Court of Appeals of Nevada recently considered whether a custom-made sign constituted a “product” for purposes of the doctrine of strict products liability. The court held that the sign ­­–– a large MGM Grand (MGM) sign located atop a 150-foot tall steel pylon –– was a product for the purposes of strict products liability. Thus, the court held that Ad Art, Inc. (Ad Art), who designed, engineered, and managed the production and installation of the sign, could be held strictly liable for injuries to Charles Schueler (Schueler), a service worker who fell and sustained serious injuries. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Nevada, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Gavel

Massachusetts Court Clarifies Statute of Repose Trigger for Multi-Phase Construction Projects


This entry was posted by on .

In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 17-cv-12567-IT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185874, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently discussed a case against a general contractor and its related entities, all of whom were involved in the construction of a multi-phase construction project. The court held that, in this context, completion of the “improvement” – which was the whole project, rather than each individual phase – triggered the six-year statute of repose. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices claims were not claims based on the design and construction of the improvement and, thus, were not subject to the statute of repose.

Continue reading

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Fraud - Misrepresentation, Massachusetts, Statute of Limitations-Repose and tagged , , , , .