GLOBAL COMPANIES LLC & Others v. HOP ENERGY, LLC, & Others.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-935

GLOBAL COMPANIES LLC & others 1

vs.

HOP ENERGY, LLC, & others. 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Defendant HOP Energy, LLC (HOP), appeals from a judgment

entered against it on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim

following the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. 3 HOP

raises several arguments, and we address each in turn.

1. Service of process. HOP's first argument is that the

plaintiffs did not effectuate service on it within the ninety-

day period set out in Mass. R. Civ. P. 4 (j), as appearing in

1Global Oil Companies LLC; Global Petroleum Corp.; Chelsea
Sandwich LLC; Sandwich Rack; and Liberty International
Underwriters.

2 PG Genatt Group, LLC, and First Mercury Insurance Company.

3Hop's notice of appeal includes an appeal from the order
denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment, but Hop's
raises no separate argument as to this order.
402 Mass. 1401 (1988). The original complaint was served

outside the ninety days, but a judge of the Superior Court (the

first judge) allowed a motion to enlarge the time for service of

process. An extension may be obtained upon a showing of "good

cause." Id. See Commissioner of Revenue v. Carrigan, 45 Mass.

App. Ct. 309, 311, 314 n.5 (1998).

The judge wrote that the extension was allowed "without

prejudice to the defendants contesting service of process and

its timeliness." This is a strange formulation, as it appears

to indicate that the judge allowed the motion without

determining whether there was "good cause" for allowing the

extension. HOP argues that there was no such good cause. Even

if that was what the judge meant, however, we need not

determine, in this case, whether good cause was indeed shown.

We conclude that even if the original complaint was late served,

there was no prejudice to HOP.

To begin with, although we need not rely upon it, the fact

is that at the time the motion was allowed, the statute of

limitations had not expired. See G. L. c. 260, §§ 1, 2. 4 Thus,

had the motion been denied or HOP's motion to dismiss allowed,

the plaintiffs could simply have refiled the complaint and

4 Given that the motion was well within either the six-year
statute of limitations for contract actions or the twenty-year
statute of limitations for actions on contracts under seal, we
need not resolve which statute of limitations applies.

2
served it -- which is in essence what they did. While still

within the time period for filing suit, the plaintiffs in fact

filed an amended complaint, which is the operative one, and

served it within ninety days of its filing. In these

circumstances, where there can, therefore, have been no

prejudice to HOP, it would elevate form over substance to

dismiss this case on the basis of late service of the original

complaint.

2. The merits. Turning to the merits of the judgment,

this case arises out of an injury suffered by John Trudel, an

employee of HOP, on premises leased to HOP by plaintiff Chelsea

Sandwich LLC. The lease agreement contained a provision

pertaining to HOP's insurance obligations. It stated that HOP

would:

"take out and maintain throughout the Term [of the lease]
. . . : Comprehensive liability insurance insuring
Landlord and Tenant against all claims and demands for any
injury to persons or property which may be claimed to have
occurred on the Premises or on the sidewalk or ways
adjoining the Premises, in an amount equal to not less than
One Million Dollars."

HOP did have a commercial general liability policy issued

by defendant First Mercury Insurance Company (First Mercury),

which was effective at the time of the injury. The policy

provided that First Mercury would "have the right and duty to

defend the insured against any 'suit' seeking" damages "because

3
of 'bodily injury' or 'property damage' to which this insurance

applies."

Trudel never brought a "suit" against the plaintiffs. He

did make a claim against the plaintiffs, which First Mercury

refused to defend. After First Mercury's refusal to become

involved, the plaintiffs settled the claim for $365,000, which

their own insurer, plaintiff Liberty International Underwriters

(Liberty) paid.

A second judge, who heard the plaintiffs' and HOP's cross-

motions for summary judgment, concluded that HOP had failed to

obtain the insurance which it had agreed in the lease to obtain,

i.e., insurance against all claims and demands, not only against

all suits; that this failure was a breach of contract; and that,

consequently, the plaintiffs were injured in the amount of the

settlement and the costs of defending against the claim.

a. Construction of the lease and insurance contract. We

review the judge's construction of the lease and the insurance

policy de novo. See James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Murphy,

478 Mass. 664, 667 (2018). We agree that the plain language of

the lease required HOP to obtain insurance broader than that it

obtained from First Mercury. There is no error in the second

judge's construction of the lease or the insurance policy.

HOP argues that the second judge erred by ignoring the

conclusions of the first judge, who ruled in favor of First

4
Mercury on its earlier motion for summary judgment. HOP argues

that the first judge's conclusions are "the law of the case."

Vittands v. Sudduth, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 401, 413 n.19 (2000)

("The 'law of the case' doctrine reflects the reluctance of a

second judge to rule differently from the first judge on a case,

issue, or question of fact or law once decided by final judgment

or on appeal").

This argument is of no avail, as the basis of the first

judge's entry of summary judgment in favor of First Mercury was

precisely that it did not breach its obligation by failing to

defend against what was only a claim and not a suit. This is

precisely the reasoning of the second judge.

b. First Mercury's refusal to defend the claim. HOP also

argues that the reason First Mercury did not defend the claim

was that the plaintiffs failed to provide it with information it

requested.

Pursuant to the lease, HOP provided the plaintiffs with

certificates of insurance covering most of the Global entities

except Chelsea Sandwich LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Global

Partners LP. Chelsea Sandwich LLC is, in fact, the only entity

that is a signatory to the lease and that is named as the

landlord in the lease. 5 It is true that in its final

5 In light of our disposition of this matter, we need not
determine whether HOP further breached the lease by failing to

5
communication with certain of the plaintiffs, 6 First Mercury

asked for documentation showing that Global Companies LLC was a

landlord listed in the lease or that the insurance provision

covered affiliates of the landlord, given that, after reviewing

the lease, First Mercury concluded that only Chelsea Sandwich

LLC was listed as a landlord.

But, in an earlier communication, First Mercury also said

that in the absence of any litigation, it was not obligated to

defend. In its motion for summary judgment, First Mercury

stated that it had no such obligation because of the terms of

the insurance policy, and the first judge, who ruled on that

motion, agreed. Likewise, in the order allowing the plaintiffs'

motion for summary judgment against HOP, the second judge

concluded that the claim by Trudel was not covered under the

terms of the insurance policy. Again, we agree with that

reading of the policy, and, consequently, the failure of some of

the plaintiffs to respond to the questions posed in the e-mail

message sent by First Mercury is ultimately irrelevant to this

case. We note also that even if the plaintiffs had satisfied

First Mercury that Chelsea Sandwich LLC was a named insured

obtain coverage for Chelsea Sandwich LLC as a "named insured"
under the policy.

6 Global Petroleum Corp., Global Companies LLC, and Global
Oil Companies LLC.

6
under the policy, First Mercury still would have refused to

defend, as the policy did not cover Trudel's claim, regardless

of who the named insureds were.

c. Affidavits of counsel. HOP next argues that affidavits

of Trudel's counsel and plaintiffs' counsel, submitted as joint

exhibits related to the parties' cross motions for summary

judgment, were inadmissible because they were not based on the

attorneys' personal knowledge as required by Mass. R. Civ. P.

56 (e), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). As the judge made clear that she

did not rely on them, any error in their admission was harmless.

d. Right to a jury trial. HOP next argues that its right

to a jury trial was denied. Of course, a favorable ruling on

summary judgment means that the judge has concluded there is no

genuine issue of material fact requiring trial. See Correllas

v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 316 (1991). Allowance of a summary

judgment motion, therefore, does not deny the losing party its

right to a jury trial. HOP does not specifically point to any

genuine issue of material fact. It argues that with regard to

Trudel's claim, it was not put on notice regarding mediation,

settlement negotiations, or the settlement itself. But HOP

points to no legal basis for asserting that there is any such

requirement. HOP has not been found to be an insurer, which

might have a policy requiring such notice; it has been found to

have breached its lease with the plaintiffs.

7
e. Reasonableness of the settlement. HOP argues that

there was no admissible evidence submitted at the assessment of

damages stage regarding the details of Trudel's accident, his

injuries, and the overall damages he suffered, so the plaintiffs

should not have been found to have carried their burden of proof

that the settlement was fair and reasonable. The second judge,

who modified (in respects not relevant to this question) and

signed the plaintiffs' proposed order noted only,

"after review of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Assessment of
Damages and supporting documentation, HOP Energy's
Opposition and supporting documentation, and following oral
arguments, it is hereby ORDERED that:

"l. Liberty's $365,000 settlement, on behalf of Global,
with Mr. John Trudel was fair and reasonable . . . ."

HOP is not arguing that there is a genuine dispute of

material fact –- it put in no evidence with respect to the

reasonableness of the settlement amount -- but that there was

insufficient admissible evidence to support the judge's

conclusion.

In support of their motion for the assessment of damages,

the plaintiffs submitted only a copy of the lease; copies of the

certificates of insurance that some of the plaintiffs had

received; a copy of the petition for approval of a third-party

settlement filed with the Department of Industrial Accidents

(DIA) indicating that Trudel and the plaintiffs had agreed to a

8
$365,000 settlement; and a self-serving affidavit from

plaintiffs' counsel stating, "[b]ased on my professional

experience, the $365,000 settlement with Mr. Trudel was

reasonable, fair, and equitable in light of his injuries." We

may assume the lease and the certificates do not address the

reasonableness of the settlement. The DIA petition does not

appear to be admissible evidence, and we may assume it is not.

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 615, 619 (2005). 7

Even were we to ignore the sworn affidavit of plaintiffs'

counsel, the memorandum in support of the plaintiffs' motion

referred to a number of facts that were contained within

admissible evidence submitted as part of the parties' joint

appendix at summary judgment: specifically, that Trudel fell

and injured his right shoulder while at the premises HOP leased

from Chelsea Sandwich LLC, that Trudel initially demanded $1

million from the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs and Trudel

ultimately agreed to settle his claims for $365,000. We think

this was sufficient to support the judge's finding.

f. Attorney's fees. HOP also argues that there was no

basis for attorney's fees, but the lease expressly requires

7 The second judge also suggested at the nonevidentiary
hearing that she could take judicial notice that the settlement
was approved, but there is no indication that a settlement that
was for too much would not be approved, so we leave that as well
to one side.

9
them. It objects to the amount of fees awarded but has not

pointed to any specific evidence that any aspects of the fees

were unreasonable, stating only that the request for fees and

the award "are filled with unduly vague, confusing descriptions

and 'block billing' which did not segregate work performed on

the claims against HOP Energy." HOP claims that "[t]here is a

substantial amount of time and billing claimed by the Plaintiffs

relating to claims and allegations against First Mercury and

[defendant PG] Genatt [Group, LLC]" (Genatt), the defendant's

insurance agent. This lacks any kind of specificity from which

we could assess any alleged error in the fee award, which, we

note, was reduced from what was requested by over $15,000.

g. The judgment excludes Chelsea Sandwich LLC. HOP does

make two claims that are correct. First, it notes that the

judgment does not make reference, or appear to apply, to Chelsea

Sandwich LLC. For aught that appears, Chelsea Sandwich LLC is

indeed a plaintiff in this case, and the party with whom HOP had

a contract, the lease. (Chelsea Sandwich LLC did not pay the

settlement, Liberty did, but the plaintiffs aver that Liberty is

subrogated to the plaintiffs' claims.)

There is no explanation for why some of the named

plaintiffs, including Chelsea Sandwich LLC, are not listed on

the judgment, which lists only Global Companies LLC, Global Oil

Companies LLC, and Global Petroleum Corp., or why the ones that

10
are listed are included. In fact, there is no explanation of

why the named successful plaintiffs are entitled to damages for

a breach of Chelsea Sandwich LLC's lease.

The plaintiffs assert that "[i]t is immaterial which

Plaintiffs judgment was entered for because . . . Chelsea

Sandwich, LLC and the Global Plaintiffs are all related

companies, and Liberty is subrogated to their claims. Frost v.

Porter Leasing Corp., 386 Mass. 425, 426-427 (1982)." All the

plaintiffs except Liberty are purportedly owned by a

nonplaintiff entity, Global Partners LP. But although they may

be related companies in this way, there was no finding by any

judge below that there was a basis for piercing the corporate

veil, ignoring the corporate form, or treating them as one

entity.

The plaintiffs also maintain that HOP acknowledged they

were all parties to the lease by having them named as additional

insured parties under the First Mercury insurance policy.

Putting aside that that policy does not even cover this claim,

this has nothing to do with whether they are parties to the

breached contract. The text of the lease does not name as

landlord any of the parties for whom certificates of insurance

were issued.

Consequently, the case must be remanded for a determination

of which plaintiff or plaintiffs were damaged and why they may

11
claim compensation for a breach of the agreement between Chelsea

Sandwich and HOP (and for any modification of the judgment that

may require).

h. An offset for the plaintiffs' settlement with Genatt.

In addition, HOP notes that the amount of the judgment was not

offset by the $17,500 recovered by the plaintiffs in their

settlement with Genatt. The judge's order denying HOP's motion

to alter or amend the judgment indicated that HOP was entitled

to this setoff. Again, there is no explanation for why this

setoff was not included in a revised judgment, and the

plaintiffs conceded at argument that it should have been. On

remand, the amount of the judgment should be set off by that

Genatt settlement amount. From the date of that settlement,

interest should run only on the amount of damages awarded in

this case, as interest should not accrue on amounts already paid

by Genatt.

i. Interest. Finally, HOP argues that interest should run

not from the date of the filing of the plaintiffs' action, as

the judge ordered, but from the date of the breach. As the

plaintiffs point out, however, the breach necessarily occurred

well before the date when the plaintiffs commenced this action.

The error HOP alleges would inure to its benefit, not detriment.

j. Appellate attorney's fees. The plaintiffs request

appellate attorney's fees under § 11.12 of the lease. That

12
provision states, "In the event either Landlord or Tenant shall

institute any action or proceeding against the other to enforce

the terms of this Lease or any default hereunder, the

unsuccessful party in such action or proceeding agrees to

reimburse the successful party for reasonable attorneys' fees,

including reasonable costs and disbursements incurred by the

successful party."

Such fees were awarded in the trial court, and HOP does not

contend that that provision is inapplicable here. The

plaintiffs are clearly the "successful party" in the litigation

and have been successful here on appeal on all but two matters.

Nonetheless, HOP has succeeded on those two matters, the issue

of the judgment appearing not to run against Chelsea Sandwich

LLC, itself, and the offset. Consequently, the request is

allowed to the extent it covers attorney's fees for work on all

except those two issues. The plaintiffs shall file, within

fourteen days of the of issuance of the decision in this case,

documents supporting their fee request, and the defendant shall

have fourteen days to respond in accordance with Fabre v.

Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004). To the extent the plaintiffs

seek damages, costs and interest on the ground the appeal is

frivolous, that request is denied.

3. Conclusion. We vacate that portion of the judgment

setting forth the names of the plaintiffs included in the

13
judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings so that

the judge can determine which plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered

damages and should be included in the judgment. We also vacate

the portions of the judgment related to the amount of damages

and the calculation of interest, and on remand the judge shall

incorporate in the judgment the offset related to Genatt, and

14
the interest shall be recalculated as described in this

memorandum and order. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. The

order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment is

vacated.

So ordered.

By the Court (Rubin,
Massing & Grant, JJ. 8),

Clerk

Entered: June 16, 2025.

8 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

15