George A. Bougadis

The plaintiff, a person under disability following a motor vehicle accident, applied for approval of a combined tort and accident benefits settlement of $1,525,000.

The court reviewed the proposed legal fees and disbursements under a contingency agreement, approving the fees but reducing the payable disbursements to only those recovered from the insurer, as per the agreement's terms.

The court declined to approve the proposed structured settlement, ordering plaintiff's counsel to file a case manager report demonstrating how the structure would meet the plaintiff's future needs.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a single motor vehicle collision when the vehicle, driven by the defendant driver, lost control after traversing a dip in a rural road.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the municipality, alleging the road was in a state of non-repair.

The plaintiff and the driver entered into a Mary Carter agreement and jointly pursued the municipality for liability.

The court found that the dip in the road did not constitute a state of non-repair, as it did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver.

The court concluded the collision was caused by the driver's excessive speed and distraction from opening a beverage bottle.

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to seek payment of expert fees, amend its statement of claim, and obtain certificates of pending litigation (CPL) after the action was set down for trial.

The Master granted leave due to the defendants' ongoing failure to comply with production orders, which constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The defendants were ordered to pay $10,000 in wasted expert fees caused by their piecemeal production.

While leave to amend the statement of claim was granted, the request for CPLs was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in land, as the underlying agreement did not establish a fiduciary relationship or joint venture.

A dispute arose after the defendant purchased a winning $2 million scratch lottery ticket while in a romantic relationship with the plaintiff and living with her parents.

The plaintiff claimed the parties had agreed to share lottery winnings, while the parents argued they owned the winnings because the ticket was purchased using their company's debit card.

The court held that the evidence did not establish any express or implied agreement between the romantic partners to share the winnings and rejected claims of constructive trust or unjust enrichment.

The court further found that the parents had implicitly permitted the debit card use and had no entitlement to the proceeds.

The winnings belonged solely to the defendant, subject only to a small damages award relating to a lost deposit caused by a freezing order obtained by the plaintiff.