Jim’s results include:
$2.1M jury verdict against utility company for electrician’s crushed wrist
In this widely reported case, Jim effectively portrayed the devastating effect of a utility pole that fell on an electrician’s wrist – a job injury that abruptly ended the worker’s career and life passion. As a result, Jim’s client was awarded approximately three times the present value of his estimated lifetime lost earnings plus all medical expenses. Following his celebrated victory in court, after adjusting for pre- and post-judgment interest, the ultimate payout was $2.7M.
$2.6M medical malpractice settlement for failure to diagnose pulmonary emboli
Jim secured this settlement for the family of a husband and father who died following the failure of both an internist and a pulmonologist to properly diagnose and treat him for pulmonary emboli. Jim proved that the two physicians overruled an earlier proper diagnosis, eliminating the opportunity to treat the pulmonary emboli and prevent the man’s death.
$275K fire insurance settlement for manufacturer despite policy limit of $21,000 for location of fire
When a warehouse fire caused $400,000 damage, Jim’s client obtained more than $170,000 from his primary insurer while a secondary insurer sought to limit its payment to the $21,000 maximum coverage specified for the location of the fire. Jim’s careful reading of the policy revealed an additional grant of coverage in the amount of $500,000 which applied to property “not at premises listed in the description of premises . . . at any location” – a phrase he reiterated throughout negotiations, summary judgment, mediation, and successful settlement.
$225K legal malpractice settlement for poorly handled sale of domain name
Jim’s clients had agreed to sell the Internet domain name which he and his partner owned for $600K. Unfortunately, the way their lawyer negotiated and finalized the purchase agreement, they had no recourse when the buyer defaulted on making full payment. Before hiring counsel, the clients had negotiated the business terms of the sale: they were to receive $100K at the closing, plus $200K 90 days later, plus 300K shares of the buyer’s stock and an agreement that if the buyer did not “go public” within 18 months, it would pay the sellers $1 per share (equal to $300K). The buyer experienced financial problems shortly after the sale, and paid only the first $100K. Jim sued for $500K, arguing that the clients’ lawyer and law firm had improperly failed to negotiate for security (collateral), a guarantee as to payment of the balance owed, or an automatic reversion of the domain name. Prior to trial, the case went to mediation and settled, resulting in an additional $225K paid to Jim’s clients.
$250K liability insurance settlement for knee injury in which client initially sought only $10K
A partner in a video production company suffered a fracture to his tibial plateau when he was struck – as a pedestrian – by a car when crossing the street en route to a meeting. The minimal driver’s insurance was insufficient to make the client whole. The client came to Jim seeking to recover the $10K limit of “underinsurance” proceeds under the automobile policy of his common-law wife. That claim was unsuccessful because even though he was a “household member,” he was not related to his common-law wife by “blood, marriage, or adoption” under Massachusetts law. Undaunted, Jim discovered another policy covering the video partnership’s van that provided $100K in underinsurance coverage. Jim sued for the policy limit, plus additional amounts for bad faith. After Jim obtained summary judgment in favor of his client, the insurer settled for $250K, far in excess of the client’s medical expenses and lost earnings.
$200K settlement for $80K damage from insurer which wrongfully denied original claim
An indoor chemical spill caused $80K damage which the insurer refused to cover, citing the policy’s pollution exclusion. Jim questioned the applicability of the pollution exclusion since the spill was contained inside the building and the chemical was a principal raw material of the business, not a “pollutant.” Jim also noted that the policy provided an exception for pollution caused by certain specified causes of loss, including water from a pipe – and in this case, the chemical etched through a large water pipe, resulting in a liquid spill of water-borne chemical. Jim prevailed at summary judgment, setting the stage for a trial to determine multiple damages and attorneys’ fees due to bad faith. As a result, the parties ultimately settled for two and half times the claim’s original value.
$95K settlement above policy limit for an insurer’s bad faith adjustment of a house fire
Mindful that insurers are obligated to adjust and pay claims fairly and promptly, when an insurer refused to settle with homeowners following the total loss of their house and possessions, Jim prosecuted a bad faith claim against the insurer. In addition to recovering the full value of the policy, the homeowners received an additional $95K from the insurer to settle the bad faith action. Further, Jim brought a claim against the insurance broker (now defunct) for failure to procure adequate limits of insurance, and then brought a claim against another broker which had promised to procure malpractice (errors and omissions) coverage for the original broker. Jim obtained a settlement from the second broker and is seeking to assess damages against the principal of the defunct first insurance broker.
Jury verdict for property owner in abutter’s claim of adverse possession
In this three-party dispute, Jim represented the seller of a commercial building whose abutting neighbor wanted to buy for a song. Just before Jim’s client was to close on a sale of the building to an architect/developer, the buyer asked that the seller remove a fence installed by the neighbor in the alleyway between the properties. When the abutter claimed ownership of the land by adverse possession, the buyer stopped payment on the final portion of the purchase price. The case dragged on for years before Jim was retained to resolve the adverse possession claim. Jim won the case by proving that the fenced-in portion was jointly used and maintained, sinking the abutter’s case because an essential element of adverse possession is exclusive use.
Jury verdict for landlord based on tenant’s forged lease
The tenant of a commercial property sought to avoid paying rent while the landlord was building out the leasehold space, citing lease terms providing that no payments were owed during the build-out. In a dramatic courtroom scene, Jim proved that the lease which the tenant had introduced in evidence was a fabrication and forgery!
|
|
