Insurance companies don't have to pay for South End property owner's decade-long battle against neighboring condo building, judge rules

A national justice contiguous ruled against the proprietor of a ample concern gathering successful the South End who was seeking to person security companies screen his ineligible costs and imaginable damages successful a suit brought by the developer of a Harrison Avenue condo gathering his spot wraps around.

Arthur Leon was seeking extortion from the millions of dollars helium mightiness beryllium forced to pay should the developer of the present completed 18-unit Jordan Lofts gathering triumph his suit against Leon for doing everything helium could to halt construction. That included trying to bring a transgression complaint against the developer, John Holland, for allegedly trespassing connected Leon's spot - a complaint a Boston Municipal Court clerk magistrate dismissed arsenic unfounded.

A last pre-trial league for the suit Holland filed successful 2015 was expected to beryllium held this week with a Suffolk Superior Court judge.

Leon and Holland person been battling, archetypal earlier the Boston zoning board, past successful court, since 2012. In 2019, the authorities Supreme Judicial Court ruled against Leon successful a brace of dueling complaints implicit which broadside was unconstitutionally trying to support the different from "petitioning" authorities by filing either for oregon against the condos.

In her ruling today, US District Court Judge Indira Talwani ruled that Leon volition person to basal unsocial erstwhile it comes to paying for lawyers and for immoderate settlements of the 2015 suit should helium lose.

She sided with the 4 security companies Leon has utilized implicit the years and which helium sued, agreeing that portion their policies would indemnify Leon against a "malicious prosecution" lawsuit, what Holland really filed was an "abuse of process" lawsuit, which their policies bash not. cover.

Although the 2 dependable akin to the non-lawyer - and adjacent immoderate lawyers and judges - Talwani concluded that the security companies were correct, that the 2 presumption successful information mean antithetic things and that Holland was not alleging that Leon was maliciously prosecuting him.

Talwani said Massachusetts courts person agelong maintained that "malicious prosecution" and "abuse of process" are not the same, that "malicious prosecution" involves "the commencement oregon continuation" of transgression charges. While determination was 1 attempted transgression complaint successful the case, the lawsuit wide much readily fell into the class of "abuse of process," which progressive attempting to usage immoderate administrative "process" for "an ulterior oregon illegitimate purpose," she concluded.

In essence, Holland contended that helium had repeatedly won during the administrative process for starting operation - done the zoning-board approval, a 2013 tribunal ruling that Holland could statesman work, the 2014 ruling dismissing Leon's transgression trespassing ailment and different zoning-board ruling successful 2015 approving penthouses Holland wanted to adhd - and that each this proved that Leon was engaged successful an "abuse of process."

In their petition to disregard the case, the 4 insurers said, without taking a stance connected the claims, that Holland was, successful fact, alleging "abuse of process," or, arsenic they enactment it, "intentional actions undertaken [by Leon and his company] to hinder and interruption 477 Harrison Ave. LLC's asserted close to make the property."

Talwani besides cited rulings by the national appeals tribunal that covers Massachusetts that security companies would beryllium expected to constitute their policies successful conformance with authorities law, successful this lawsuit that determination is simply a quality betwixt the 2 phrases and that insurers should not beryllium expected to conflate the 2 erstwhile penning their policies.

Complete ruling (1.9M PDF).