In a dispute involving a 17-year business relationship between companies in the plastic film industry, firm attorneys prevailed at trial and on appeal in this breach-of-contract case. When a firm client suspected it was being shortchanged by its materials supplier, the future of their small family business was at stake. Pierce Atwood stepped in and helped convince a jury in Rhode Island federal court to award $2 million in lost profits to our client and ensure that the 17-year contract would remain in force. The award and the contract helped ensure the future of this small business.

We successfully tried a NASDAQ-listed company's claims against an ASIC developer who had contracted to develop the client's next generation product. The 14 person jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client for $36.7 million in damages, which is believed to be the largest verdict ever from a state court jury in Massachusetts. The jury also returned a verdict for the client rejecting the developer's approximately $7 million in counterclaims.

John Bulman has been appointed sole arbitrator in an AAA large complex case dispute relating to the engineering, design, procurement and construction of a power plant in the Eastern U.S.

Pierce Atwood won an insurance coverage appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for our client, an insured food processing company. The appeal turned on the issue of whether an unexplained cause of damage to property constitutes an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. The appeals court reversed summary judgment that the trial court entered in favor of the insurer, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. The decision is significant because it is the first in the country where the court ruled that an insured’s liability based on application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine could be sufficient to establish an “occurrence” under a CGL policy, despite not knowing the actual cause of damage. This is an important decision that is extremely beneficial to policy holders.

Represented US entity in distributorship dispute with UK company and its US sales and marketing subsidiary.  The matter was administered by ICDR and arbitrated in Rhode Island. Issues concerned reaching the correct respondent (which had approximately 13 related companies).  Received award for 100% of damages, plus attorney’s fees under Rhode Island statute, plus interest, and had the correct respondent liable for the award.  The matter is now in collection in the UK, which administers such awards under the New York Convention.

John Bulman has been appointed to chair an arbitration panel regarding a large complex dispute involving development of a new petrochemical plant.

Represented one of two partners in partnership dispute pertaining to operation of P&C personal lines insurance agency.  Ultimately we secured an agreement to arbitrate the dispute, addressing liability and then issues of valuation for a divorce between the partners.  Secured findings in favor of our client and very successful award of damages (high six figures) for his interest in the agency.

John Bulman is serving as an arbitrator in a matter relating to the construction of a natural gas-fueled combined-cycle generating facility in New England.

John Bulman has been appointed the sole arbitrator in a large complex construction dispute involving a multi-unit residential condominium development project located in suburban Boston.

Represented a construction manager seeking payment for labor and materials (plus profit) provided to a luxury condominium developer, prior to termination. Required to prove that the termination was for convenience and then to prove damages, which was challenging due to the manner in which financial records were maintained.  The developer offered nothing to settle until first day of hearings, when he offered slightly less than $1 million.  Ultimately an award was issued providing for payment to construction manager of slightly more than $5 million, representing almost a 100% recovery plus interest.

Represented the developer of limited service hotel in dispute with construction manager, leading to construction manager’s termination of the contract, arguing material breaches by the developer. The matter went through mediation and then arbitration with award being issued in favor of developer for cover. The proceeding also involved peripheral disputes with various trades who had liens on the project.

Pierce Atwood represents a large national bank in an overdraft fee MDL pending in the District of South Carolina.  During the course of the representation, we obtained dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims based on the bank’s past practice of ordering debits from high to low, and of usury claims based on the bank’s assessment of additional fees after a customer’s checking account continues to have a negative balance ten business days after the initial overdraft.  In addition, we successfully opposed plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class seeking actual damages for alleged violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

Served as chair of arbitration panel addressing claims by public owner against Design Builder of waste-to-energy generating equipment.  Following issuance of award against Design Builder, at the request of the Design Builder, successfully mediated a resolution in a follow-up dispute with its vendors/subcontractors and consultants.

Pierce Atwood represented Portland Pipe Line Corp. in legislative opposition to, and in litigation challenging, an ordinance that prevents the use of its pipeline for transporting certain types of crude oil from Canada to tankers in Portland Harbor. Portland Pipe Line Corp. withdrew the lawsuit in July 2021.

In a case that should be of interest to manufacturers and distributors, and especially to suppliers of building products, Pierce Atwood’s class action defense team defeated class certification in a building products case in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs alleged defective design and manufacture of decking sold by our client. After extensive fact and expert discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and a hearing was held. On September 21, 2015, District Judge Denise Casper issued her decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that individualized issues of causation and injury precluded findings of commonality, typicality and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The judge based her ruling, in part, on evidence that only a small percentage of purchasers had reported problems with the decking, and that almost all of the warranty claims those purchasers submitted had been honored.

John Bulman has been asked to serve as an arbitrator in a consumer dispute based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and breach of contract.

Defended a representative of Fidelity Investments in a deposition. 

Defense of a financial institution in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts in an employment action brought by former employees alleging deceptive employment practices.

Defended a gaming company in litigation over an alleged breach of a multi-million dollar royalty agreement.

Anne Meade v. S.D. Warren, et al. 00-018, Somerset County Superior Court, Maine, Docket No. CV-00-018. Mass tort case (not a class action) arising from a “cancer cluster,” alleging damages for personal injuries and illnesses allegedly resulting, inter alia, from exposure to toxic or harmful chemicals disposed of, emitted, or released at or from the Central Maine Disposal Corporation Landfill in Fairfield, Maine.

The litigation attorneys in our Augusta office successfully defended a mechanical services company in connection with work done on a hydroelectric facility.

Defended individual against State of Maine criminal enforcement action for alleged illegal disposal and treatment of hazardous wastes.

In a putative class action in Maine Superior Court filed on behalf of borrowers with mortgages allegedly discharged improperly by Bank of America, Pierce Atwood helped the bank obtain a voluntary dismissal of all claims in the face of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Quebbeman v. Bank of America, N.A., Maine Superior Court No. BCD-CV-15-01 (Order dated November 9, 2015).

We successfully defended a major retailer in parallel federal multi-district and state level class actions after a data security breach resulted in exposure of electronic payment card data.

Prevailed on summary judgment to obtain dismissal of privacy tort claims against a major supermarket.

On behalf of North America’s largest vinyl siding manufacturer, we recently obtained dismissal of breach of warranty and consumer protection claims in a putative nationwide class action filed in the Northern District of New York.  The court held that the four named plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, and based its decision in part on the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.

We represented a check processing company and its debt collector affiliate in a series of putative class actions filed in California, Kansas, Maine, New York, and North Carolina, and consolidated in Multi-District Litigation in the District of Maine.  After obtaining dismissal of all of the lawsuits originally filed outside of Maine, we negotiated a favorable nationwide class action settlement for our client of all remaining claims.

John Bulman is currently sitting on a Dispute Review Board for a nuclear power plant construction project. Industry professionals are chosen to sit on Dispute Review Boards by the interested parties involved with a construction project for their experience, their independence, their commitment to the project, and their training as mediators and arbitrators. 

Lead counsel in obtaining dismissal of employment claims against hotel operator in U.S. District Court in Boston.

Obtained dismissal of employment discrimination claims against a hotel management company.

We received two favorable appellate decisions on behalf of our developer client, Montrose School Park, LLC, in a series of cases challenging permits for a residential cluster development in Beverly, Massachusetts. Browne v. Conservation Commission of Beverly, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2014) (unpublished) and Browne v. Planning Board of Beverly, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2017) (unpublished).

We received a favorable trial decision from the Superior Court on behalf of our client, 246 Main Street Realty, LLC, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession of a portion of the parking lot for the client’s commercial building.

In a matter recognized by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly as one of the most important opinions of 2012, we obtained a favorable order for a general contractor seeking to enforce an Ohio arbitration clause. The matter was of particular importance because it was the first time a court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a Rhode Island statute that prohibits out-of-state arbitration in certain construction matters.

Pierce Atwood obtained a favorable outcome for our clients at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Penobscot Nation v. Mills, the case brought by the Penobscot Indian Nation asserting control over the use and water quality of the Penobscot River in Maine. On June 30, 2017, by a 2-1 vote, the First Circuit panel affirmed the Maine U.S. District Court’s ruling that the tribe’s claims are barred by the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. The First Circuit majority also rejected the tribe’s claim that the state has interfered with the tribe’s sustenance fishing rights. Pierce Atwood represents a coalition of municipal and private wastewater discharge licensees on the Penobscot River.

Obtained a favorable settlement for an owner of a spiritual retreat facility against its contractor and design professionals through a seven-party mediation following an incident that involved a burst sprinkler pipe, substantial property damage, and discovery of pervasive latent construction defects. Before the mediation, Pierce Atwood worked closely with the owner and the owner’s representatives to review the defective conditions and press for performance of the remedial work by the construction and design professionals.  Multiple demands on the contractor’s performance bond had to be made to ensure performance of the corrective and incomplete work.  Once the work was completed, Pierce Atwood represented the owner in the multi-party mediation that dealt with challenging issues involving construction defects with the fire protection system, reimbursement for additional costs due to the delayed project, complex insurance coverage issues (including with the owner’s property insurer), contract terms (waiver of subrogation, waiver of consequential damages), continuing warranty obligations, and the scope and finality of the release. At the end of the mediation process, the owner was paid for costs it incurred during the delayed project and it paid nothing against the claims submitted by its contractor and design professionals.

We obtained a favorable trial verdict for our client Synectic Software Solutions, Inc., software developer and maker of VendSys Vending Management System, in a copyright and trade secrets lawsuit brought by Gimme Vending, LLC.  The case related to a failed business relationship concerning the attempted integration of Gimme's Bluetooth hardware with Synectic's handheld software.  When Synectic successfully integrated with a competing Bluetooth device maker, Gimme filed suit alleging that Synectic copied its software.  After an expedited trial on the merits completed less than a month after Gimme filed suit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts rejected Gimme’s claims of copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and breach of the parties’ license agreement, and ruled that Gimme was not entitled to any monetary damages.  

First Circuit Affirms Challenge to Local Ordinance Restricting Competition on City Projects: In a case of first impression, and on behalf of Merit Construction Alliance and its members, we successfully challenged the enforcement by the City of Quincy (Mass.) of the residency, apprenticeship and health and welfare benefits provisions of its so-called “Responsible Employer Ordinance” in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the Responsible Employer Ordinance (REO) is unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The decision has wide-ranging implications, as there are some 20 or more municipalities in the Commonwealth with similar ordinances, which are now vulnerable because they are arguably unenforceable.

The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for our client Standard Insurance Company in a disability benefits case. The court held that Standard was not liable for payments of benefits to treat Chronic Lyme Disease beyond the 24 month limitation period set by the ERISA plan for limited physical and mental conditions.

In two separate class actions, in which Pierce Atwood separately represented Unum Life Insurance Company and Sun Life Assurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that using Retained Asset Accounts (RAAs) to pay death benefits claims on group life insurance policies does not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), where the policies either require or permit payment by RAA.

Representation of Homefront Health Care in seeking appointment of a Receiver.