Case 1:15-cv-13985-GAO Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE :
COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF
:
SAMUEL RAHMAN,
:
Civil Action No.
436 Walnut Street
:
Philadelphia, PA 19106
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CLASSICAL DETAILS
:
18 Rugdale Road
:
Boston, MA 02124
:
:
Defendant.
:
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of Samuel Rahman, through
its undersigned counsel and for its Complaint against Defendant, Classical Details, alleges as
follows:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, as subrogee of Samuel Rahman,

is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
with its principal place of business at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
2.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was authorized to issue insurance policies in

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3.

Defendant, Classical Details, is a business entity organized and existing under the

laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal place of business at 18 Rugdale
Road, Boston, MA 02124.

Case 1:15-cv-13985-GAO Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 5

JURISDICTION
4.

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as there

is diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of the
interest and costs of this action.
5.

Venue is properly laid in this judicial district as the events giving rise to

Plaintiffs claim occurred in this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs insured, Samuel Rahman, owned the real

and personal property located at 33 Edgehill Road, Brookline, MA 02445 (Subject Property).
7.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff provided insurance coverage to Mr. Rahman

for the Subject Property pursuant to policy number 268054109 (Policy).

8.

Prior to February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs insured hired Defendant to remove snow

and ice from the Subject Propertys roof.

9.

On February 17, 2015, Defendant performed snow and ice removal work on the

Subject Propertys roof.

10.

On February 17, 2015, Defendant used a torch to melt snow and ice on the

Subject Propertys roof.

11.

Heat from the torch ignited combustible material on or about the Subject

Propertys roof, causing a fire.

12.

The fire spread and caused substantial damage to the Subject Property, along with

the personal property therein.

13.

Plaintiffs insured submitted a claim to Plaintiff for the damage caused by the

February 17, 2015 fire.

Case 1:15-cv-13985-GAO Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 5

14.

Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, Plaintiff made payments to its insured in

excess of $75,000.
15.

In accordance with the terms of the Policy, as well as the common law principles

of legal and equitable subrogation, Plaintiff, by virtue of and to the extent of its payments, is
subrogated to its insureds rights.
COUNT I NEGLIGENCE
16.

Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs preceding Count I as if fully set forth herein.

17.

Defendant had a duty to use due care while performing work at the Subject

Property.
18.

Defendant breached its duty to use due care while performing work at the Subject

Property.
19.

The February 17, 2015 fire and resulting damage were the direct and proximate

result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligent acts and omissions of
Defendant and/or Defendants agents and/or employees, acting within the scope of their
employment, as follows:
a) Improperly removing snow and ice from the Subject Propertys roof;
b) Using a torch in a way that exposed the Subject Property to an unreasonable risk
of damage by fire;
c) Failing to properly train its employees in the use of a torch;
d) Failing to conduct a proper fire watch;
e) Failing to properly supervise the use of a torch at the Subject Property; and
f) Exposing the Subject Property to an unreasonable risk of damage by fire.

Case 1:15-cv-13985-GAO Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 5

20.

As the direct and proximate result of these negligent, careless, and/or reckless acts

and/or omissions, Plaintiffs insured suffered damage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of
$75,000, together with interest, the costs of this action, and such other relief as deemed just and
proper under the law.
COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT
21.

Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs preceding Count II as if fully set forth

22.

On information and belief, Defendant had a contract with Plaintiffs insured to

herein.

perform snow and ice removal work at the Subject Property.

23.

On information and belief, Defendants contract with Plaintiffs insured obligated

Defendant to perform snow and ice removal work in a way that did not create an unreasonable
risk of fire.
24.

Defendant breached its obligation to perform snow and ice removal work in a way

that did not create an unreasonable risk of fire.

25.

Defendants breach caused the February 17, 2015 fire and resulting damage to the

Subject Property.

Case 1:15-cv-13985-GAO Document 1 Filed 11/30/15 Page 5 of 5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of

$75,000, together with interest, the costs of this action, and such other relief as deemed just and
proper under the law.
Date: December ___, 2015
Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Patrick J. Loftus III_____

PATRICK J. LOFTUS, III, ESQ.
9 Park Street 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 723-7770
Of Counsel:
Kevin J. Hughes, Esq.
Christopher H. Boyle, Esq.
Cozen OConnor
1650 Market Street Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 665-2000
khughes@cozen.com
chboyle@cozen.com