The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a Chapter 93A demand letter did not satisfy Tort Claims Act presentment because it omitted the incident, negligence theory, legal basis, and date.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for state elevator-oversight agencies on all claims brought by an elevator company and its employees following years of regulatory disputes over permits, alteration orders, and reciprocal licensing. Key holdings: Indiana does not recognize a private right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution; a regulatory takings theory not pled in the complaint is waived; and ITCA immunity for discretionary licensing denials is not defeated by evidence of vindictiveness — degree of culpability is simply not a relevant consideration once immunity attaches.
The Appellate Division, Second Department reverses a Court of Claims denial of a late-claim motion, holding that the claimants’ submission sufficiently demonstrated the claim’s apparent merits—a critical statutory factor under Court of Claims Act § 10(6)—even though the court found no reasonable excuse for the delay in identifying the State as the road’s owner.
The Fourth Department holds that Rochester’s proprietary duty to maintain safe roads runs only to the traveling public, not to homeowners whose property is struck by a speeding vehicle at a T-intersection, absent a special duty running to them specifically.
The Fourth Department affirms a $908,000 verdict against Erie County after a deputy’s incomplete U-turn blocks a bus lane, holding that the VTL § 1104 reckless disregard defense was validly precluded as a discovery sanction and that the directed verdict on negligence was proper.