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

1,150 chars

Here, there is a question as to whether Williams-burg is entitled to the protection of the statute of repose. Therefore, the first question to be addressed is whether Williamsburg is an actor under G.L.c. 260, §2B. “In considering whether an actor not clearly within the statute is entitled to repose, the court engages in a fact-based activities analysis. The court must consider the motivation of the actor in producing the improvement.” Id. (citations omitted). “(T]he Legis*515lature, by enacting §2B, meant to protect providers of ‘individual expertise’ in the business of designing, planning, constructing, and administering improvements to real estate . . . §2B was intended ... to apply . . . only to the kinds of economic actor who perform acts of ‘individual expertise’ akin to those commonly thought to be performed by architects and contractors — that is to say, to parties who render particularized services for the design and construction of particular improvements to particular pieces of real property.” Dighton, Mass. at 696. In Klein v. Catalano, the Supreme Judicial Court discussed the reasoning behind G.L.c. 260, §2B as follows:

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text