What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
Communicating with Sugarman Rogers through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of our attorneys. Our decision as to whether and on what terms we may agree to represent a client involves consideration of a variety of factors, discussion with the prospective client, and, where appropriate, a written engagement agreement.
Please do not use this form of communication to transmit any private, personally identifying, or other confidential information. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of this means of communication.
April 1, 2025
Sugarman Rogers partner William L. Boesch won a summary-judgment dismissal of a claim against an insurer client for unfairly failing to settle a malpractice case brought against a home inspector. In the malpractice case, the buyer of a million-dollar home in Wayland, Massachusetts contends that the home inspector should have informed her that the cladding on the front of the house was a kind of brick tile rather than full-dimensional brick. The court agreed with Sugarman Rogers that even aside from whether the home inspector should have reported this fact, it was far from clear what if any cognizable harm or damages the buyer suffered from the omission, and under those circumstances the insurer had no obligation to settle the claim. Thus, the buyer’s unfair-practices claim against the insurer was groundless as a matter of law.
|
|
Sugarman Rogers wins dismissal of claim against insurer |
Date: April 1, 2025 |
Press Release |
William L. Boesch |
Related Services: Insurance & Reinsurance |
||
|
Sugarman Rogers partner William L. Boesch won a summary-judgment dismissal of a claim against an insurer client for unfairly failing to settle a malpractice case brought against a home inspector. In the malpractice case, the buyer of a million-dollar home in Wayland, Massachusetts contends that the home inspector should have informed her that the cladding on the front of the house was a kind of brick tile rather than full-dimensional brick. The court agreed with Sugarman Rogers that even aside from whether the home inspector should have reported this fact, it was far from clear what if any cognizable harm or damages the buyer suffered from the omission, and under those circumstances the insurer had no obligation to settle the claim. Thus, the buyer’s unfair-practices claim against the insurer was groundless as a matter of law. |
Related People |
|||
William L. BoeschPartner617.227.3030[email protected] |
|||