Preview
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EFILED
WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT
CIVIL ACTION No, KBP SCV22322 - D
LOUIS M. BROWN
Re
Plaintiff
CITY OF LEOMINSTER
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10
MAYOR DEAN MAZZARELLA
MASSACHUSETTS INTERLOCAL
INSURANCE Association )
Defendants
—______)
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM
1. Plaintiff LOUIS M BROWN (hereinafter "Brown "’) is an
individual residing at 16 Green
Mountain Ave, Leominster, Worcester County, Massa
chusetts 01453.
2. The Defendant, the City of Leominster, (the “City ”) is
” a body corporate and politic established
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachus: etts.
The municipality includes a number of
boards, commissions, departments, and agencies
with regulatory and policy-making powers in
Leominster.
3. Defendants Does 1 thru 10, inclusive, are sued under
fictitiou
namess, When their true names
and
capacities are known, Plaintiff will promptly amend this complaint
and add them as named
Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therein allegs es that each of these fictitiously
named defendants is or was an employee, agent or servant
of the defendant City of Leominster,
legally responsible, negligently, , or in some other actionable
manner, for the events and happenings
hereinafter set out in the complaint and they, along with
their Co-Defendants, jointly and severally
proximately caused Plaintiff's damages. At variou
s times, Does 1 through 10 upon information and
belief , were acting within the scope of their official duties as
employees of the City of Leominster,
4. Upon information and belief, Dean Mazzarella is the
Ma or of the City of Leominster,
Worcester County, Massachusetts. At all times relevant iy
hereto the Mayor was an elected
Official of said City of Leominster, and has an office lo
cated at City Hall in the City of
Leominster, Count y of Worcester, State of Massachuse' tts, 01453.
During his tenure as
Mayor of the City of Leominster, Mayor Mazzola was
fully informed about the
outrageous claims of gross negligence of employees, agent
s and servants of Leominster,
and did nothing about the gross negligence and said gross
negli gence has continued to the
present day.
5. The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association
(MITA) was incorporated by the
Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) in 1982 as
a nonprofit organization to provide
insurance services to the cities, towns and other gover
nmental entities in Massachusetts that are
members of the MMA.
GENERAL FACTS
6. The defendants, their agents or servants did not pre-treat
the roads nor sanded nor salted
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
the
roads when it knew or should have known not pre-treati
ng or sanding or salting the
mountain hills within the city of Leominster o1 mi a
public road would result in hazardous
conditions for the residents of those mountain hills
of the City of Leominster, namely
Richardson Street.
Failure to pre-treat, sand or salt the road ways in
anticipation of hazardous weather
conditions constitutes gross negligence.
The hazardous weather conditions, particularly any precip
itation, ended at approximately
6 PM on February 6, 2020.
9 The incident involving the plaintiff occurred at at *
Ippro: ximat itely 6:15 AM on February 7,
2020—more than twelve hours after all precipitation had
ceased.
10. When the plaintiff entered Richardson Si treet, it
was too late for the plaintiff to abort his
travels because the road was downhill id he had already entere
an d the roadway.
11. As the plaintiff entered Richardson Stree 1 off of Winter
Street, plaintiff began to slide out
of control and did not regain control between Winte
r Street and North Main Street on
Richardson Street.
12, Plaintiff's vehicle hit a tree stump which caused the
vehicle to roll over (the tree stump
was removed several weeks later).
13. Failure to remove the tree stump prior to February
7, 2020 also Tepresented gross
negligence.
14. The defendants, their agents or servants were gross
ly negligent by their failure to pre-
treat roads in anticipation of forecasted hi ‘azardous weather conditions.
15. Gross negligence is defined as an “act or omiss
ion respecting legal duty of an aggravated
character as distinguished from a mere failure to exerci
se ordinary care” (see Altman v.
Aronson, 231 Mass. 588).
COUNT I
LOUIS M. BROWN V THE CITY OF LEOMINSTER,
JOHN DOES 1 THRU 10, AND
MAYOR DEAN MAZZARELLA
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the alleg
ations contained in paragraphs above.
17. On or about February 7, 2020, Defendants were
grossly negligent when operating
equipment to treat roads within the City of Leo: minste
7
r. The City of Leominster did not
pre-treat the hills within Plaintiff's neighborho: od, causi
ng Plaintiff to slide down
Richardson Street unimpeded, until he struck a tree
stump. The tree stum was p
ina
position where it was grossly negligent to be left.
18. The accident occurred at the intersectio: n of
Richardson and North Main Streets, in the
City of Leominster, at a T- intersection.
19. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was injured,
20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negli
gence, plaintiff suffered serious
personal injuries, mental anguis! th, pain and suffer
ing and has incurred medical expenses
in excess of $8,000.00, and ot ther consequential damages.
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
“
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Louis M. Brown dema
n ds judgment against all defendants, Jointly
severally, in an amount that will fairly and and
adequ ately compensate him Sor his damages,
plus interest and costs.
COUNT II
Louis M. Brown v. MIAA
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRA
CTICES
21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein
the allegations contained in paragraphs above.
22. MILA (as City’s agent) knowingly mis: Te] pres
ented pertinent facts or insurance policy
provisions relating to the claim at issue.
23. MIIA (as City’s agent) refused t fo pay a clai
m for a reason that is arbitrary or capricious
based on all available information,
24. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to settle
a claim promptly when liability was reasonably
clear under one portion of a poli icy, in order to
influence settlements under other portions
of the policy.
25. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to, promptly,
upon request to provide a reasonable
explanation of the basis for no of settlement it to
Brown’s claim.
26. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to adop
t and implement reasonable stan dards for
investigation of claims arising the prompt
un der their insurance policy with Uber .
27. MIIA (as City’s age nt) refused to offer to
pay a reasonable settlement amount, after
liability became cl lear, and did so without
conducting a reasonable investigation.
28. MIA (as City’s agi ent
) failed to affirm or deny coverage of claims
within a reasonable
time after proof of loss statements have been
completed or after having completed its
investigation related to the claims.
29. MITA (as City’s agent) did not atte mpt
in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and
equitable settlement of claims subi mitted
in which liability has become reasonably clear
.
30. MITA (as City’s agent) coy mpel insureds or
beneficiaries to institute suits to recover
amounts due under its poli icies by offering
substantiall: ly less than the amounts ultimately
recovered in actions brought by the insureds
or beneficiaries.
31. MIIA (as City’s agent) attemp ted to settl
e a claim for less than the amount to which
reasonable person would bel lieve the plaintiff a
was entitled to.
32. MITA (as City’s agent) unreasonably del: layed
the investigation or payment of claims by
requiring a claimant, such as the plainti: ff,
to accept a lower than reasonable settlement
offer, forcing injured passengers to tak
¢ less then they may be due, causing an injured
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
‘Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
person like Brown to file iti igation rather than
being allowed to get a resolution short of
litigation.
33. MITA (as City’s agent) failed, in
the instant case, made claims denials
compromise settlement, and addition or offers of
ally failed to promptly provide a reas
accurate explanation of onable and
the basis for such action,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Louis M. Bro
wn demands
judgment against all defendants, join
tly and
severally, in an amount that will fairly
and
dequately compensate him for his damages,
plus
interest and costs.
COUNT II
BROWN V. MIIA
VIOLATION OF MASS GEN LAWS CH
93A.
34. The plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates
herein the allegations contained in the paragrap
as if expressly rewritten and set forth herein. hs above
35. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant
MIIA was en, gaged in trade orcommerce withi
meaning of Massachusetts statutes, n the
36. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffwas
also engaged as a consumer within the
Massachusetts statutes, meaning of
37. As both parties at all times Televant
hereto, were engaged in trade or commerce
meaning of Massachusetts statutes, this is within the
a consumer transaction covered under the Mass
Consumer Prote ction Act. achusetts
38. Defendant’s behavior tepresents unco
nscionable behavior, said behavior whic
conscience and h shocks the
are considered unfair and deceptive business
practices, It is settled law in
Massachusetts and under Federal Law that unfai
r and d leceptive business practices bring with
higher levels of‘punishment. it
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
‘Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
39. The defendant has willingly and maliciously and
continuously behaved ina way which
Tepresents significant violations of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection statutes which are meant
to protect consumers, like the plaintiff, from the wrong
ful behaviors complained of above.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the foreg
oing unfair and deceptive acts and unfair business
Practices of the defendant the plaintiff has s
uffered damages.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the of defendant’
8 Violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, plaintiff was caused to sustain sever
e an id permanent personal injuries, was cause
to suffer a credit inquiry on plaintiff's credit Teport which d
effectively diminish his credit score and
subsequently led a higher cost of credit all due to
the acts in Violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands. ‘judgment
against Defendant FOR $3 '0,0000.00 (TOTAL
DAMGES OF $30,000.00 TO BE TRIPLED UNDE
R MASS GEN LAWS CHAP 934A) or in an
amount that will fairly and adequately compensate
him fofor his damages, plus interest and costs and
anticipated attorneys’ fees of this action.
PRAYER
A. That this Honorable Court order P: ayment of
THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($30,000.00) as compensation for the GROSS NEGLIG
ENCE committed by the defendants
in Count I, JOINTLY AND SEV. ERABLY,and the
harm resulting to plaintiff from said gross
negligence.
That this Honorable Court order P. ayment of THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS
($30,000.00) as com pensation for the additional acts
of unfair and deceptive insurance claims
settle ment practices committed brvy the defendant in Count
Il, and the harm result ing to
plaintiff from said unfair insuran ce claims settlement
practices.
That this Honorable Court order Pay: ‘ment of T]
HIRTYTHOUSAND DOLLAR: S ($30,000.00)
as compensation for the VIOLATION OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS CONSUME)
PROTECTION ACT, CHAPTER 93Ac ommitted
by the defendant in Count III and the harm
resulting to plaintiff from said VIOLATIONS,
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM
Superior Court - Worcester
Docket Number
ON ALL COUNTS, PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
A TRIAL BY JURY.
futtzca ee
LOUIS M BROWN
PRO SE
16 GREEN MOUNTAIN AVE
LEOMINSTER, MA 01453
Tel 617 691 0011
louismitchellbrown91@gmail.com
Dated: April 11, 2023
Preview
Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EFILED WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT CIVIL ACTION No, KBP SCV22322 - D LOUIS M. BROWN Re Plaintiff CITY OF LEOMINSTER JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 MAYOR DEAN MAZZARELLA MASSACHUSETTS INTERLOCAL INSURANCE Association ) Defendants —______) Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM 1. Plaintiff LOUIS M BROWN (hereinafter "Brown "’) is an individual residing at 16 Green Mountain Ave, Leominster, Worcester County, Massa chusetts 01453. 2. The Defendant, the City of Leominster, (the “City ”) is ” a body corporate and politic established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachus: etts. The municipality includes a number of boards, commissions, departments, and agencies with regulatory and policy-making powers in Leominster. 3. Defendants Does 1 thru 10, inclusive, are sued under fictitiou namess, When their true names and capacities are known, Plaintiff will promptly amend this complaint and add them as named Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therein allegs es that each of these fictitiously named defendants is or was an employee, agent or servant of the defendant City of Leominster, legally responsible, negligently, , or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter set out in the complaint and they, along with their Co-Defendants, jointly and severally proximately caused Plaintiff's damages. At variou s times, Does 1 through 10 upon information and belief , were acting within the scope of their official duties as employees of the City of Leominster, 4. Upon information and belief, Dean Mazzarella is the Ma or of the City of Leominster, Worcester County, Massachusetts. At all times relevant iy hereto the Mayor was an elected Official of said City of Leominster, and has an office lo cated at City Hall in the City of Leominster, Count y of Worcester, State of Massachuse' tts, 01453. During his tenure as Mayor of the City of Leominster, Mayor Mazzola was fully informed about the outrageous claims of gross negligence of employees, agent s and servants of Leominster, and did nothing about the gross negligence and said gross negli gence has continued to the present day. 5. The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MITA) was incorporated by the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) in 1982 as a nonprofit organization to provide insurance services to the cities, towns and other gover nmental entities in Massachusetts that are members of the MMA. GENERAL FACTS 6. The defendants, their agents or servants did not pre-treat the roads nor sanded nor salted Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number the roads when it knew or should have known not pre-treati ng or sanding or salting the mountain hills within the city of Leominster o1 mi a public road would result in hazardous conditions for the residents of those mountain hills of the City of Leominster, namely Richardson Street. Failure to pre-treat, sand or salt the road ways in anticipation of hazardous weather conditions constitutes gross negligence. The hazardous weather conditions, particularly any precip itation, ended at approximately 6 PM on February 6, 2020. 9 The incident involving the plaintiff occurred at at * Ippro: ximat itely 6:15 AM on February 7, 2020—more than twelve hours after all precipitation had ceased. 10. When the plaintiff entered Richardson Si treet, it was too late for the plaintiff to abort his travels because the road was downhill id he had already entere an d the roadway. 11. As the plaintiff entered Richardson Stree 1 off of Winter Street, plaintiff began to slide out of control and did not regain control between Winte r Street and North Main Street on Richardson Street. 12, Plaintiff's vehicle hit a tree stump which caused the vehicle to roll over (the tree stump was removed several weeks later). 13. Failure to remove the tree stump prior to February 7, 2020 also Tepresented gross negligence. 14. The defendants, their agents or servants were gross ly negligent by their failure to pre- treat roads in anticipation of forecasted hi ‘azardous weather conditions. 15. Gross negligence is defined as an “act or omiss ion respecting legal duty of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exerci se ordinary care” (see Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588). COUNT I LOUIS M. BROWN V THE CITY OF LEOMINSTER, JOHN DOES 1 THRU 10, AND MAYOR DEAN MAZZARELLA GROSS NEGLIGENCE 16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the alleg ations contained in paragraphs above. 17. On or about February 7, 2020, Defendants were grossly negligent when operating equipment to treat roads within the City of Leo: minste 7 r. The City of Leominster did not pre-treat the hills within Plaintiff's neighborho: od, causi ng Plaintiff to slide down Richardson Street unimpeded, until he struck a tree stump. The tree stum was p ina position where it was grossly negligent to be left. 18. The accident occurred at the intersectio: n of Richardson and North Main Streets, in the City of Leominster, at a T- intersection. 19. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was injured, 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negli gence, plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries, mental anguis! th, pain and suffer ing and has incurred medical expenses in excess of $8,000.00, and ot ther consequential damages. Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number “ WHEREFORE, plaintiff Louis M. Brown dema n ds judgment against all defendants, Jointly severally, in an amount that will fairly and and adequ ately compensate him Sor his damages, plus interest and costs. COUNT II Louis M. Brown v. MIAA UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRA CTICES 21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs above. 22. MILA (as City’s agent) knowingly mis: Te] pres ented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the claim at issue. 23. MIIA (as City’s agent) refused t fo pay a clai m for a reason that is arbitrary or capricious based on all available information, 24. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to settle a claim promptly when liability was reasonably clear under one portion of a poli icy, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the policy. 25. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to, promptly, upon request to provide a reasonable explanation of the basis for no of settlement it to Brown’s claim. 26. MIIA (as City’s agent) failed to adop t and implement reasonable stan dards for investigation of claims arising the prompt un der their insurance policy with Uber . 27. MIIA (as City’s age nt) refused to offer to pay a reasonable settlement amount, after liability became cl lear, and did so without conducting a reasonable investigation. 28. MIA (as City’s agi ent ) failed to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed or after having completed its investigation related to the claims. 29. MITA (as City’s agent) did not atte mpt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims subi mitted in which liability has become reasonably clear . 30. MITA (as City’s agent) coy mpel insureds or beneficiaries to institute suits to recover amounts due under its poli icies by offering substantiall: ly less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds or beneficiaries. 31. MIIA (as City’s agent) attemp ted to settl e a claim for less than the amount to which reasonable person would bel lieve the plaintiff a was entitled to. 32. MITA (as City’s agent) unreasonably del: layed the investigation or payment of claims by requiring a claimant, such as the plainti: ff, to accept a lower than reasonable settlement offer, forcing injured passengers to tak ¢ less then they may be due, causing an injured Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM ‘Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number person like Brown to file iti igation rather than being allowed to get a resolution short of litigation. 33. MITA (as City’s agent) failed, in the instant case, made claims denials compromise settlement, and addition or offers of ally failed to promptly provide a reas accurate explanation of onable and the basis for such action, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Louis M. Bro wn demands judgment against all defendants, join tly and severally, in an amount that will fairly and dequately compensate him for his damages, plus interest and costs. COUNT II BROWN V. MIIA VIOLATION OF MASS GEN LAWS CH 93A. 34. The plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in the paragrap as if expressly rewritten and set forth herein. hs above 35. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MIIA was en, gaged in trade orcommerce withi meaning of Massachusetts statutes, n the 36. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffwas also engaged as a consumer within the Massachusetts statutes, meaning of 37. As both parties at all times Televant hereto, were engaged in trade or commerce meaning of Massachusetts statutes, this is within the a consumer transaction covered under the Mass Consumer Prote ction Act. achusetts 38. Defendant’s behavior tepresents unco nscionable behavior, said behavior whic conscience and h shocks the are considered unfair and deceptive business practices, It is settled law in Massachusetts and under Federal Law that unfai r and d leceptive business practices bring with higher levels of‘punishment. it Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM ‘Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number 39. The defendant has willingly and maliciously and continuously behaved ina way which Tepresents significant violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection statutes which are meant to protect consumers, like the plaintiff, from the wrong ful behaviors complained of above. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the foreg oing unfair and deceptive acts and unfair business Practices of the defendant the plaintiff has s uffered damages. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the of defendant’ 8 Violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, plaintiff was caused to sustain sever e an id permanent personal injuries, was cause to suffer a credit inquiry on plaintiff's credit Teport which d effectively diminish his credit score and subsequently led a higher cost of credit all due to the acts in Violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands. ‘judgment against Defendant FOR $3 '0,0000.00 (TOTAL DAMGES OF $30,000.00 TO BE TRIPLED UNDE R MASS GEN LAWS CHAP 934A) or in an amount that will fairly and adequately compensate him fofor his damages, plus interest and costs and anticipated attorneys’ fees of this action. PRAYER A. That this Honorable Court order P: ayment of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00) as compensation for the GROSS NEGLIG ENCE committed by the defendants in Count I, JOINTLY AND SEV. ERABLY,and the harm resulting to plaintiff from said gross negligence. That this Honorable Court order P. ayment of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00) as com pensation for the additional acts of unfair and deceptive insurance claims settle ment practices committed brvy the defendant in Count Il, and the harm result ing to plaintiff from said unfair insuran ce claims settlement practices. That this Honorable Court order Pay: ‘ment of T] HIRTYTHOUSAND DOLLAR: S ($30,000.00) as compensation for the VIOLATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSUME) PROTECTION ACT, CHAPTER 93Ac ommitted by the defendant in Count III and the harm resulting to plaintiff from said VIOLATIONS, Date Filed 4/11/2023 12:06 PM Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number ON ALL COUNTS, PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY. futtzca ee LOUIS M BROWN PRO SE 16 GREEN MOUNTAIN AVE LEOMINSTER, MA 01453 Tel 617 691 0011 louismitchellbrown91@gmail.com Dated: April 11, 2023