Reported Cases

Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 392 Mass. 537 (1984)

This was a case of first impression before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and a landmark case throughout the U.S. The SJC decided that under a car insurance policy providing "per person" coverage and "per accident" coverage, an insurer that had exhausted its "per person" liability to a person with bodily injury was also obligated to make additional payments pursuant its "per accident" coverage for the non physical injuries suffered by a spouse or children. The non physical injuries are called loss of consortium; it means the loss of the love, care, affection, society, and companionship that the spouse and children suffer due to the physical injuries of the person injured in a car accident.

This was the first time a court held that loss of consortium injuries were independently covered by a car insurance liability policy.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Comm'r of Insurance, 395 Mass. 765 (1985)

This was a pro bono case in which I represented Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Inc. (MADD) as an additional plaintiff in the litigation. MADD challenged the power of the Commissioner of Insurance to unilaterally change the language of car insurance liability policies in Massachusetts. The Commissioner's actions nullified the "Bilodeau" ruling above that held car insurance policies cover loss of consortium damages as separate and distinct injuries for spouses and children.

Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc., 422 Mass. 126 (1996)

This was a case of first impression in Massachusetts and a landmark case throughout the U.S. The Supreme Judicial Court held that bars and restaurants may be held liable for alcohol-related accidents stemming from underage drinking when alcohol is supplied to minors by intermediaries who are adults. It was the first time in which a court held that a bar or restaurant was liable for a minor's intoxication when the minor was not the direct purchaser of the alcohol. The minor had been supplied the drinks by an adult who had bought the drinks on the premises. The court stated that "the club's knowledge is measured by the cumulative knowledge of its employees."