Article Index
Twitter Posts

Jack DiNicola and Damon Seligson Named New England SuperLawyers

DSU is proud to announce that Jack DiNicola and Damon Seligson have been named New England SuperLawyers.  DiNicola was named a SuperLawyer for Construction Lititgation.  Seligson was named a SuperLawyer for Business Litigation.


DSU Celebrates Our 10 Year Anniversary

DiNicola, Seligson & Upton, LLP started its business of providing efficient results to its clients ten years ago today.  At that time, we knew that we had a great group of loyal clients and that we could provide excellent legal advice to our clients.  We did not know ten years ago that we were starting our new business in the worst recession in decades.  However, through our loyal client base, we not only made it through those difficult times, but have prospered.  We could not have done this without our great clients - so we thank our clients for their loyalty for the past ten years.  Over the past ten years, we have represented hundreds of clients in thousands of matters, in dozens of states throughout the United States.  We have represented clients in state and federal courts, in arbitrations and mediations, and have represented clients before dozens of administrative boards and authorities.

Our mission statement established in 2008 remains the same today, has driven us each day for the past decade, and will drive us each of the following days - Efficient Results.  Our core philosophy has never changed -- provide great legal advice at a reasonable cost.  That philosophy got us to where we are today, and will not change.  Our core clients in the construction industry, the alcoholic beverage industry, senior living industry, and hotel industry are the reason we established DSU and the reason we have prospered over the past ten years.  It is with the utmost gratitude that we thank those that helped us achieve this milestone. 

Once again, we thank our clients, colleagues, and our vendors, many of which have been with us for ten years, for helping us achieve this milestone.  


Andrew Upton Appeared on WGBH "Greater Boston" To Discuss Another Recent Campaign Finance Case

On December 7, 2016, DSU partner Andrew Upton appeared on WGBH's Greater Boston news program to discuss another recent campaign finance case filed in Superior Court.  Please click on the link to view the segment: 


DSU Congratulates Its Clients On Making The BBJ's List Of The Top 25 Largest General Contractors In Massachusetts

The Boston Business Journal recently published its list of the 25 largest general contractors in Massachusetts.  DSU is proud to represent 5 of the top 8 and 6 of the top 21 general contractors in the Commonwealth.  We congratulate Suffolk Construction Co., Inc., Gilbane Building Company, Lee Kennedy Co., Inc., Tishman Construction, Commodore Builders Corp., and Cutler Associates, Inc. on this accomplishment


DSU Wins Important Appeals Court Case Regarding Notice On Massachusetts Public Construction Bond Claims

DSU attorneys, Jack DiNicola and Mike Brangwynne, prevailed in the Massachusetts Appeals Court on behalf of Hartford Fire Insurance Company (and its principal, SPS New England, Inc.).  The case, N-Tek Construction Services, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, can be reviewed here:

This case involved a second tier subcontractor asserting a bond claim against a general contractor's payment bond surety on a public construction project.  DSU and Hartford prevailed at trial.  N-Tek appealed.

The primary issue on appeal, and the only one addressed by the Appeals Court, was whether N-Tek's e-mail to SPS was sufficient notice so as to comply with the requirements of Section 29 of M.G.L. c. 149 (the Massachusetts Public Construction Bond Statute).  While this case was fact sensitive, and many of the facts were not recited in the opinion, the Appeals Court held that N-Tek's notice, which was an e-mail to SPS, was not sufficient notice under the statute and the analogous Miller Act (applicable to federal construction projects).  The Appeal Court, in affirming the Superior Court, held that, "in light of all material surrounding circumstances ... [the e-mail] fails to state, explicitly or implicitly, that [N-Tek] was making a claim against SPS for services rendered on the project, and thus fails to satisfy [the statute.]"  The Appeals Court further held that the notice provision of the statute "was intended to relieve the general contractor of the need to engage in guesswork as to whether a claim was being made against it or the statutory bond." 

This case is important for several reasons.  First, it establishes parameters for proper notice under the statute.  Often, when public construction bond claim notice issues are analyzed, it is the timing of the notice, rather than the content, that becomes an issue in dispute.  This case will give general contractors and sureties some guidance on what is required of a lower tier subcontractor in terms of the quality and content of the notice.  Second, it establishes the importance to general contractors and sureties of the notice requirement in the statute.  The Appeals Court cited several policy issues from the viewpoint of the general contractor and surety to the notice requirements in the statute.  Third, the Appeals Court did not state that e-mail notice can never be compliant with the statute.  This issue remains open.   

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the issues raised in this decision, please contact Jack DiNicola.