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

1,950 chars

In support of its contention that it is protected by the statute of repose, Williamsburg cites Sonin v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, claiming that it “settles that an owner may rely upon the Statute of Repose to defend against a claim based upon the allegation that the owner participated in an act protected by the statute — i.e. the design, planning, construction, or general administration of improvements to real property...” The Court in Sonin said “an owner that participates in the design of improvements to real property is as entitled to the protection of §2B as any other actor involved in such design or construction— but only with respect to a claim for negligence in the design.” 61 Mass.App.Ct. 287, 289 (2004).7 Therefore, as stated above, Williamsburg argues that to the extent the plaintiffs’ claim is based upon allegations that it negligently installed the fluorescent light, it is entitled to a directed verdict. The Appeals Court, however, has held that simply installing a boiler does not involve “the type of ‘design, planning, construction or general administration’ required by the statute of repose.” Colomba v. Filchini Plumbing, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 901, 902 (2003). “The focus on ‘individual expertise’ and ‘particularized services’ has remained constant in our decisions . . . While we can imagine situations where a plumber would perform more expanded services that might bring him within the statute of repose, the mere installation of a boiler, and nothing more, does not qualify.” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, the installation of fluorescent lights does not involve the type of design, planning, construction or general administration required by the statute of repose. Because Williamsburg does not claim that it was involved in any other aspect of the fluorescent lights (e.g. design or planning), it is not a protected actor under and is not entitled to the protection of the statute of repose.8 D. DAMAGES

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text