Insurance

Areas of Concentration

Construction claims.
Advertising injuries.
Environmental contamination.
Asbestos and hazardous substances.
Professional, directors and officers liability.
Reinsurance.
“Bad faith” claims.
Coverage opinions.
Alternative dispute resolution.

The AP&S Insurance Law Group offers a comprehensive range of economical and time-sensitive legal services to individuals, insurers and companies—from Fortune 500 corporations to small employers throughout New England. Our expertise encompasses defense and indemnity issues relating to construction claims, as well as advertising injuries, and environmental contamination, asbestos and other hazardous substances. We also offer experienced guidance and representation in professional liability defense, directors and officers’ liability, first-party property, homeowners, products, specialty lines and reinsurance concerns.

We advise clients on insurance coverage and “bad faith” claims for insurers, both admitted and surplus lines carriers, and give coverage opinions on a variety of policies and issues, including questions pertaining to employee fidelity bonds, disability insurance, life insurance, environmental claims, construction defects and “trigger issues.”

Litigators first and foremost, with extensive state and federal court experience, AP&S attorneys have been nationally recognized as lead counsel in groundbreaking decisions of the appellate courts of Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, as well as the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. They’ve successfully argued appellate claims concerning such issues as “trigger of coverage,” setoff for non-settling excess insurers, the “sudden and accidental” exception to pollution exclusion clauses, and employer immunity under worker’s compensation acts.

We work closely with our clients’ risk managers assure that appropriate insurance is secured and appropriate benefits under existing policies are obtained. We also advise our clients on selecting coverage and special endorsements suited to the particular circumstances of each undertaking, regularly dealing with issues of notice, adjustment of claims and coverage questions.

Perhaps most important, though, as litigators we recognize that litigation is not always the best option for our clients. Consequently, we’re always sensitive to other opportunities, including mediation, arbitration and conciliation, and we have often guided our clients through alternative dispute resolution processes.

Representative Matters

Riggs v. Alexandre Construction. (2007) Middlesex Superior Court (Massachusetts). In a three-week jury trial, AP&S defended a general contractor in a case where an ironworker fell 26 feet and sustained serious injuries. Plaintiff demanded $2 million. AP&S obtained a defense verdict.
Bik v. Del Wes. (2001) Middlesex Superior Court. In a 3-week jury trial, AP&S defended a manufacturer in a products-liability case. The plaintiff alleged permanent disability and incurred approximately $600,000 in medical expenses. AP&S achieved a defense verdict. The case was listed as one of the year’s “Top 10 Defense Verdicts” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Kelly v. O.E. Plus Ltd., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1105 (2007), review denied 449 Mass. 1109 (2007). AP&S represented a distributor of alternators in a double wrongful-death lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident and obtained summary judgment on an issue pertaining to lack of foreseeability. The plaintiffs appealed and the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.
Wentworth v. Henry Becker Custom Building, Ltd . (2007) AP&S obtained summary judgment on behalf of a general contractor in an explosion case where the plaintiffs, employees of a sub-contractor, had accepted a lump-sum payment of workers’ compensation benefits made by the insurer of a general contractor. Based on the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation statute, the court ruled that the acceptance of payment acts as a release of all claims arising from the incident brought on behalf of the injured employees against the general contractor.

View Expanded Practice