Merchants Mutual Ins. v. Face Place, Inc., 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 511 (2006)

Citation: Merchants Mutual Ins. v. Face Place, Inc., 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 511 (2006)
Parent Document: Merchants Mutual Ins. v. Face Place, Inc., 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 511 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2006-02-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356068/merchants-mutual-ins-v-face-place-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,199 chars

The Supreme Judicial Court has indicated that when there is a question about whether a defendant is entitled to repose, the first question to be answered is whether the defendant is an actor under G.L.c. 260, §2B. Dighton v. Federal Pacific Electric Co.; Sert, Jackson & Associates, Inc., 399 Mass. 687, 694 (1987). If that question is answered affirmatively, the next questions is whether the defendant’s acts are covered under the statute.6 Id. The Supreme Judical Court has further stated that “(o]n its face, §2B defines the protected actor largely by reference to protected acts. The body of §2B names no class of protected actors. Rather, its terms extend protection to persons allegedly responsible for acts, i.e., those who commit ‘any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction, or general administration of an improvement to real property.’ ” Id. Therefore, “application of the statute is necessarily dependent on the nature of the party’s activities.” Snow v. Harnischfeger Corp., 12 F.3d 1154, 1160 (1993) (citing Dighton as standing for the proposition that “the court must engage in an activities analysis when the defendant’s status as a protected actor is unclear”).

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text