Overview of the Lawsuit

Donald Houston, a resident of Dorchester, Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit owing the injuries he sustained while working at a construction site on the campus of UMass Boston. At the time of the incident, Houston worked as a mason tender. He named Capstone Development Partners, LLC; Shawmut Design and Construction; Network Adjusters, Inc.; and Houston Casualty Company (HCC) as defendants. He alleged that his injuries resulted from failures in site management, safety protocols, and the handling of insurance claims.

Cause of the Incident

The incident occurred on March 15, 2018, while Houston was unloading masonry materials. A pulley mechanism malfunctioned during the task. Houston claimed that Capstone and Shawmut had failed to train workers adequately and had not provided proper oversight of site equipment. He further alleged that the companies had allowed work to continue despite high wind conditions that created an unsafe environment. According to the complaint, these decisions demonstrated a preference for profit over worker safety.

Nature of the Injuries

Houston sustained significant physical injuries due to the pulley failure. He asserted that he had not received any warning about the hazard and that the worksite had not met basic safety standards. His injuries required medical treatment and continued to cause him pain. Houston denied any contributory negligence and maintained that the defendants’ actions were solely responsible for the incident.

Claims for Damages

Houston sought compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and ongoing pain and suffering. He also claimed emotional distress as a result of the injuries and their long-term impact on his life.

In addition, Houston brought claims against Network Adjusters, Inc. and Houston Casualty Company under Massachusetts consumer protection laws. He alleged that they had delayed processing his insurance claim and had misrepresented key facts, which caused further financial harm. He pursued damages, legal fees, interest, and statutory relief under M.G.L. c. 93A and M.G.L. c. 176D, and requested a jury trial.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff: Donald Houston

• Counsel for Plaintiff: Adam J. Combies | Matthew Charles Hanson | Stephanie Rodriguez-Ruiz

• Experts for Plaintiff: George W. Melchior

• Defendants: Capstone Development Partners, LLC | Shawmut Design and Construction | Network Adjusters, Inc. | Houston Casualty Company

• Counsel for Defendants: Christopher Groves | John Patrick Knight | Edward D. Shoulkin

Claims

Negligence in Supervision and Site Safety

Capstone and Shawmut oversaw the UMass Boston construction project. The Plaintiff alleged they failed to train workers, supervise equipment use, and enforce safety standards. On March 15, 2018, a pulley system failed while the Plaintiff unloaded materials, causing injury. He claimed the Defendants allowed work to continue despite high wind conditions, prioritizing profit over safety. The Defendants had issued no warnings about the hazard.

Violations of Consumer Protection Laws

The Plaintiff accused Network Adjusters and Houston Casualty Company of violating M.G.L. c. 93A and 176D. He alleged they delayed his insurance claim and misled him during the process. Although he submitted a demand package and signed tolling agreements, the Defendants denied liability just before mediation. The Plaintiff claimed this denial caused financial harm and blocked him from securing prejudgment interest.

Damages and Financial Loss

The Plaintiff stated the injury led to lost income, rising medical expenses, and lasting pain. He reported emotional distress and reduced ability to work. He sought compensation for all financial losses and future treatment. He held the Defendants responsible for the incident and its ongoing effects.

Jury Trial and Statutory Relief

The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial on all claims. He sought compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and statutory relief under Massachusetts consumer protection laws.

Defense

Capstone denied all negligence claims. It argued it had no legal responsibility for the Plaintiff’s injuries. Capstone asserted the claims were time-barred and that any injury resulted from third parties or the Plaintiff’s own negligence. It also disputed the severity and impact of the alleged damages.

Court Documents

Court documents are available upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com