seal

Court Case Record SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY vs. MASA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & others 2013-J-0347 UID(a96c)


SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY vs. MASA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2013-J-0347


 
Case Number2013-J-0347
Case TitleSENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY vs. MASA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date08/14/2013
Close Date03/10/2014

Parties

CounselNameType
Richard Christine, EsquireSentry Insurance CompanyPlaintiff/Respondent
Joseph T. Black, Esquire Withdrawn Marie Chafe, EsquireMasa AktiengesellschaftDefendant
Joseph T. Black, Esquire John Brosnan, EsquireConcrete Technology Integrators,Defendant/Petitioner
Christopher J. Sullivan, EsquirePavestone Company of MassachusetDefendant
Christopher J. Sullivan, EsquirePavestone Company, LPDefendant
Christopher J. Sullivan, EsquirePavestone General, Inc.Defendant
Christopher J. Sullivan, EsquireFour-K Investments, LPDefendant
John Doe ManufacturerDefendant
John Doe Maintenance CompanyDefendant
John Doe 1Defendant
John Doe 2Defendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
08/14/2013 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
08/14/2013 #2 Notice of appearance of John Brosnan for Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc.
08/15/2013 #3 RE#1: Action on the defendant's petition is stayed pending a decision by the lower court on the motion for reconsideration referenced in the petition. A status report is due, from the defendant-petitioner on or before 9/16/13 as to the status of the motion for reconsideration. *Notice/Attest.
08/28/2013 #4 Letter from Attorney Marie Chafe re: Correction of counsel.
09/16/2013 #5 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
09/17/2013 #6 RE#4: Appellate proceedings stayed to 10/17/13. Status Report due 10/17/13 regarding motion for reconsideration. *Notice.
10/17/2013 #7 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
10/17/2013 #8 RE#5: Appellate proceedings stayed to 11/18/13. Status report due then as to the motion to vacate judgment pending in the trial court. *Notice/Attest.
11/18/2013 #9 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
11/18/2013 #10 RE#6: Appellate proceedings stayed to 12-2-13. As the recent status report details rulings by the trial court on October 10, 2013 subsequent to filing its petition for interlocutory review on 8-14-13, the petitioner is to file a status report on or before 12-2-13 detailing whether this matter is now moot, and if not, how it intends to proceed with respect to its petition. If no timely status report is received detailing the necessity of further proceedings before the single justice, it should be anticipated that this matter will be dismissed. Notice/attest/Ullmann, J.
12/02/2013 #11 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
12/02/2013 RE#7: Appellate proceedings stayed to 1/2/14. Status report due 1/2/14 regarding status of this matter including whether the parties have commenced mediation proceedings. *Notice/Attest.
12/23/2013 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc^
12/27/2013 RE#8: Appellate proceedings stayed to 02/07/14. Status report due 02/07/14 regarding results of mediation. *Notice/attest/Ullmann, J.
02/07/2014 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc
02/11/2014 RE#9: Appellate proceedings stayed to 3/7/14. Status report due 3/7/14 regarding results of mediation. *Notice.
03/06/2014 Status report, filed by Concrete Technology Integrators, Inc. ^
03/10/2014 ORDER: The stay of appellate proceedings is vacated. Upon review of the petition, it does not appear that the language or the purpose of G. L. c. 152, §15 precludes Sentry's claims in the circumstances of this case. There is no showing of duplicative relief, recovery, or claims; nor is there any showing of claim splitting. The employee's claims against Doe defendants were dismissed for failure of service several months before Sentry filed its claims against the defendants. The insurer and the employee were never proceeding against the same defendants at the same time. To the extent that, hypothetically, there might in other circumstances be a potential for duplication, that possibility is absent here where the cases have been consolidated. The petition is denied. (Wolohojian, J.). *Notice/Attest/Ullmann, J.