Pierce & Mandell, P.C.

Legal Considerations for Owning an IV Bar

Like med spas, weight loss centers, and other boutique wellness providers, IV infusion therapy practices are taking off. But what is IV infusion and who can operate these practices? Are there any other legal considerations that need to be evaluated? Prior to entering into this emerging market, it is important to understand the Massachusetts specific requirements surrounding these types of practices.

Read more on the blog: https://piercemandell.com/health-and-dental-law/legal-considerations-for-owning-an-iv-bar

Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik

Shareholders Bill Mandell and Dennis Lindgren have been chosen as 2023 Top Lawyers by Boston Magazine

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. shareholders Bill Mandell and Dennis Lindgren have been chosen as Top Lawyers by Boston Magazine. See https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/11/21/top-lawyers-2023/.

Bill was selected in the field of health care law and Dennis was chosen for personal injury law.

https://piercemandell.com/business-litigation/shareholders-bill-mandell-and-dennis-lindgren-have-been-chosen-as-2023-top-lawyers-by-boston-magazine

Robert Kirby, Dennis Lindgren, Curtis Dooling, and Bill Mandell Chosen as 2023 Massachusetts Super Lawyers by Boston Magazine

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. shareholders Robert Kirby, Dennis Lindgren, Curtis Dooling, and Bill Mandell have been chosen as 2023 Massachusetts Super Lawyers by Boston Magazine. See https://www.superlawyers.com/top-lists/massachusetts/.

Robert was selected in the field of Business Litigation, Dennis was selected in the field of Personal Injury, Curtis was selected in the field of Land Use & Zoning, and Bill was selected in the field of Health Care.

https://piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/robert-kirby-dennis-lindgren-curtis-dooling-and-bill-mandell-chosen-as-2023-massachusetts-super-lawyers-by-boston-magazine

Bill Mandell to Present on Physicians & Other Health Care Providers at the Annual MCLE Hospital & Health Law Conference

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. Health Law Practice Area Leader, Bill Mandell, will be serving on the faculty of MCLE’s Annual Hospital & Health Law Conference on October 19, 2023. He will be presenting the session on Physician & Other Health Care Providers. Bill has served on the faculty of the annual conference on Massachusetts health law every year since 2003. You can find more information about this program here.

Bill is also the co-author of the Chapter on "Representing Physicians and Other Practitioners” in the accompanying MCLE publication, Massachusetts Health and Hospital Law Manual, 2023 updated edition. This publication can be found at https://www.mcle.org/product/catalog/code/2050182B00.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/bill-mandell-to-present-on-physicians-amp-other-health-care-providers-at-the-annual-mcle-hospital-amp-health-law-conference

Robert L. Kirby, Jr. and Scott M. Zanolli Prevail in Breach of Contract Case Before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Boston-Based Pierce & Mandell shareholders Robert L. Kirby, Jr. and Scott M. Zanolli recently prevailed in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit against an appeal of their summary judgment win in a multi-million dollar breach of contract case.

The firm represented two individuals accused of breaching a stock purchase agreement and refusing to sell their shares of a technology company to a venture capital firm.

The plaintiff alleged that the Pierce & Mandell’s clients were bound by a proposed multiparty stock transfer agreement between the plaintiff, the clients, and a third-party technology company, which required the technology company’s sign-off and approval of the transaction. The stock transfer agreement was signed by the plaintiff and the clients, but not the technology company. When the technology company refused to agree to the terms of the stock transfer agreement and instead proposed a subsequent agreement containing different terms, the clients declined to go forward with the transaction and the plaintiff sued in federal court for damages of more than three million dollars.

Attorneys Kirby and Zanolli were able to secure summary judgment for their clients on all claims in the District Court (Stearns, J.). The District Court issued judgment in the clients’ favor on the grounds that the negotiations between the plaintiff and the clients showed that they did not intend to be bound by the terms of the stock transfer agreement until it was signed by the third and final party. The Court also ruled that even if the plaintiff and clients had intended to be bound by the agreement, they had properly executed a termination right they negotiated into the contract. Dissatisfied, plaintiff appealed to the First Circuit.

In FinSight I LP v. Seaver, 50 F.4th 226 (1st Cir. 2022), the First Circuit ruled that even if the parties entered an enforceable agreement, it had been properly terminated by the clients. Specifically, the Court found that the termination clause in the agreement provided unambiguously that if the closing did not take place within seven business days of the date the parties signed, and that the delay was not due to the breach of the clients, then the clients had the unqualified right to terminate the agreement. The Court held that the transaction did not close within seven business days following signing, and the clients gave their notice of termination after the expiration of that period. The First Circuit also summarily dismissed the plaintiff-appellant’s alternative arguments that the clients should be estopped from avoiding the stock transfer and had been unjustly enriched.

Pierce & Mandell litigators routinely represent clients in a variety of business and contract-related matters in both state and federal courts. Please contact Robert L. Kirby, Jr. at [email protected] or Scott M. Zanolli at [email protected] for more information about our business litigation services.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/robert-l-kirby-jr-and-scott-m-zanolli-prevail-in-breach-of-contract-case-before-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-first-circuit

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. Welcomes Scott Zanolli as a Shareholder

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. is pleased to announce that Scott M. Zanolli has been elected a Shareholder of the firm, effective January 1, 2023.

Scott is a litigator in the firm’s employment and litigation practice areas. He has a broad range of experience in litigation and alternative dispute resolution with employment, non-profit, business, and health care matters. Scott has represented businesses, medical, dental and behavioral health care practices, and individuals in all forms of commercial disputes, as well as matters involving employment law compliance, restrictive covenants, trade secrets, workplace discrimination, corporate governance, and violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Since joining Pierce & Mandell, P.C. in 2013, Scott has tried multiple cases, litigated before the Massachusetts Superior Court, Probate Court, Land Court, the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and appeared in the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He was also named to the Massachusetts Super Lawyers “Rising Star” list in each of the last three years.

Scott serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the non-profit East Boston Main Streets. A native of California, Scott enjoys spending his free time with his wife, young son, and their dog, Stanley, and playing hockey for a local senior league team.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/pierce-mandell-p-c-welcomes-scott-zanolli-as-a-shareholder

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. shareholders Bill Mandell and Dennis Lindgren have been chosen as Top Lawyers by Boston Magazine

Bill was selected in the field of health care law and Dennis is listed for personal injury law.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/pierce-mandell-p-c-shareholders-bill-mandell-and-dennis-lindgren-have-been-chosen-as-top-lawyers-by-boston-magazine

Curtis Dooling Quoted In Lawyers Weekly Article On Recent Appeals Court Anti-Slapp Opinion

Pierce & Mandell partner Curtis Dooling was recently quoted in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article about the recent Appeals Court decision in Nyberg, et al. v. Whetle, et al. that raises questions about the complexity of the current anti-SLAPP legal standard. In Nyberg, the Appeals Court questioned the current Blanchard II legal standard and whether it was making it nearly impossible for litigants to bring abuse of process claims without being subject to anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss.

Dooling commented on the Nyberg opinion and noted that the current Blanchard II legal test likely allows for dismissal of some cases that are not classic SLAPP cases. Dooling also noted that the alternative suggested by the Court could open the process up to discovery and could undercut the legislature’s intent in enacting the anti-SLAPP statute. Read Dooling’s comments and the full article here: https://masslawyersweekly.com/2022/09/23/appeals-court-joins-chorus-calling-for-review-of-how-anti-slapp-law-is-working/.

Attorney Curtis Dooling has successfully litigated numerous anti-SLAPP cases and has prevailed at the Appeals Court on anti-SLAPP cases twice in recent years in Dever v. Ward, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 175 (2017) and Dever v. Ward, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (2019).

https://piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/curtis-dooling-quoted-in-lawyers-weekly-article-on-recent-appeals-court-anti-slapp-opinion

Pierce & Mandell Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Massachusetts’ Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. is proud to announce that shareholders Bob Pierce, Bill Mandell, Bob Kirby, Dennis Lindgren, and Curt Dooling have been selected as 2022 Massachusetts Super Lawyers. Scott Zanolli and Mollie Sullivan have been designated 2021 Massachusetts Rising Stars.

Read more https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/pierce-mandell-attorneys-recognized-as-2022-massachusetts-super-lawyers-and-rising-stars

Thank you Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Boston attorney William M. Mandell, the founding member and co-managing partner of Pierce & Mandell, P.C., has more than 35 years’ experience in health and business law representing healthcare systems, medical and dental practices, and health professionals. Read more: https://bit.ly/3tlvcOD

Pierce & Mandell Participates at the 2022 Boston Lawyers Have Heart 5K in Seaport

On June 2nd, a team of Pierce & Mandell attorneys and staff ran the 2022 Boston Lawyers Have Heart 5K in Seaport. The group of four, Savannah Tenney, Julie Niejadlik, Jake Fidrocki, and Emma Rock, raised $1068 dollars for the American Heart Association. Our Pierce & Mandell team had a great time getting outside and running for a good cause. Our teamwork expands beyond your legal needs.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/pierce-mandell-participates-at-the-2022-boston-lawyers-have-heart-5k-in-seaport

Bill Mandell, was named a 2022 Go To Lawyer in Health Law by the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/bill-mandell-was-named-a-2022-go-to-lawyer-in-health-law-by-the-massachusetts-lawyers-weekly

Robert L. Kirby, Jr. and Scott M. Zanolli Granted Summary Judgment in Federal Court Breach of Contract Case

Pierce & Mandell attorneys Robert L. Kirby, Jr. and Scott M. Zanolli recently won summary judgment for the firm’s clients in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Stearns, J.) in a matter seeking a multimillion dollar damages award. The firm represented two individuals accused of breaching a stock purchase agreement and refusing to sell their shares of a technology company to a venture capital firm.

The plaintiff alleged that the firm’s clients were bound by a proposed multiparty stock transfer agreement between the plaintiff, the clients, and a third-party technology company, which required the technology company’s sign-off and approval of the transaction. The stock transfer agreement was signed by the plaintiff and the clients, but not the technology company. When the technology company refused to agree to the terms of the stock transfer agreement and instead proposed a subsequent agreement containing different terms, the clients declined to go forward with the transaction and the plaintiff sued in federal court for damages in excess of three million dollars.

Pierce & Mandell was able to secure summary judgment for its clients on all claims brought by the plaintiff on the grounds that the negotiations between the plaintiff and clients showed that they did not intend to be bound by the terms of the stock transfer agreement until it was signed by the third and final party. The Court also ruled that even if the plaintiff and clients had intended to be bound by the agreement they had properly executed a termination right they negotiated into the contract.

Pierce & Mandell litigators routinely represent clients in a variety of business and contract related matters in both state and federal courts. Please contact Robert L. Kirby, Jr. at [email protected] or Scott M. Zanolli at [email protected] for more information about our business litigation services.

https://piercemandell.com/business-litigation/robert-l-kirby-jr-and-scott-m-zanolli-granted-summary-judgment-in-federal-court-breach-of-contract-case

Recent Federal Court Decision Addresses Massachusetts Non-Compete Act

The 2018 enactment of the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, G.L. c. 149, § 24L (the “Act”), changed the Massachusetts noncompete landscape by setting forth certain specific minimum conditions which must be included in any noncompete agreement in order for the agreement to be deemed valid and enforceable. One such requirement mandates that every noncompete agreement be supported by a “garden leave clause or other mutually-agreed upon consideration between the employer and the employee, provided that such consideration is specified in the noncompetition agreement.”

The Act defines “garden leave” as post-separation compensation paid to the former employee on a pro rata basis in the amount of fifty (50%) percent of the former employee’s highest annualized base salary over the 2 years preceding the employee’s termination. The Act requires “garden leave” payments to continue for the entire duration of the restricted period set forth in the noncompete agreement.

Many Massachusetts employers are simply not positioned to provide post-termination pay to their former employees. Thus, many employers choose to seek shelter in the portion of the Act that allows them to come to terms with their employees on “other mutually-agreed upon consideration” to support their proposed noncompetition agreements. However, Massachusetts Courts have yet to interpret the meaning of “other mutually-agreed upon consideration,” and employers have been largely left to guess as to what may constitute sufficient consideration to satisfy this portion of the Act.

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts shed new light on what may not qualify as “other mutually-agreed upon consideration” sufficient to satisfy the “garden leave” clause of the Act. In KPM Analytics North America Corporation v. Blue Sun Scientific, LLC, et al., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132167, *96-97 (D. Mass. 2021), the Court held that a noncompetition agreement which did not contain a “garden leave” clause or specifically articulate the “other mutually-agreed upon consideration between the employer and employee” violated the Act and was not legally binding on the employee. The implication of this decision is that the employment relationship on its own does not constitute sufficient “mutually-agreed upon consideration” to establish an enforceable noncompete agreement under the Act.

While the Federal Court’s decision is not binding on state courts, it holds persuasive authority and provides some insight on how Massachusetts courts may approach this issue in the future. It will take Massachusetts courts time to outline the minimum boundaries of what may constitute “other mutually agreed-upon consideration,” but employers are on notice that it must be more than employment and should be stated clearly in the agreement.

A noncompete agreement is merely one of a variety of restrictive covenants that an employer may use to protect its business interests. Non-solicitation clauses, forfeiture clauses, and, in the medical and dental context, agreements not to treat, are examples of other types of restrictive covenants that employers may enlist which do not fall under the strict new guidelines of the Act. Employers should consult with legal counsel to discuss the best ways to utilize these tools within the context of their specific business and industry.

Pierce & Mandell, P.C.’s experienced employment and health law attorneys routinely assist clients with drafting and negotiating restrictive covenants and represent both employers and employees in litigation concerning noncompete agreements or other restrictive covenants post-termination.

If you have any questions about how this developing area of law impacts your business or employment relationship, please contact Bill Mandell, Esq. at [email protected], Hannah Schindler Spinelli, Esq. at [email protected], or Scott Zanolli, Esq. at [email protected] for more information.

https://www.piercemandell.com/employment-law-and-litigation/recent-federal-court-decision-addresses-massachusetts-non-compete-act

Bill Mandell is Featured Speaker at 2022 Yankee Dental Congress

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. Dental and Business Law Practice Area Leader, Bill Mandell, will be serving on the faculty of the 2022 Yankee Dental Conference, scheduled for January 27 - 29, 2022. Bill will presenting a course on Legal Issues for Practice Transitions and Start-Ups, Thursday, January 27 from 2 to 4pm. The course covers the major events in the professional life of a dental practice, including the establishment or purchase of the practice, securing an associate, becoming or adding a partner in a practice, and practice sales and retirements. For additional details about the program, CLICK HERE.

https://piercemandell.com/health-and-dental-law/bill-mandell-is-featured-speaker-at-2022-yankee-dental-congress

Responding to a Complaint Made to the Board of Registration of Psychologists

Receiving a letter from a licensing board about a patient who has filed a complaint is an unpleasant but all too common experience for licensed health and dental professionals. Each licensing board has its own regulatory process and standards that govern the licensure and discipline of licensees.

Read more: https://www.piercemandell.com/health-and-dental-law/responding-to-a-complaint-made-to-the-board-of-registration-of-psychologists

New Massachusetts Law Requires Dental Practice Owners to Provide Additional Compensation for Associate Post-Termination Non-Compete Covenants Agreements

While Massachusetts law (See, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 112, Sections 12X and 74D) has long provided that employed physicians and nurses cannot be subject to post-termination non-compete covenants, the Massachusetts Legislature has never extended the same unenforceability to such non-competes appearing in associate contracts for dentists. Massachusetts dental practice owners have thus come to rely on post-termination non-compete covenants as an important and customary protection for their practices. The new Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 24L (the “Act”) has changed the scope of enforceability for post-termination non-compete covenants appearing in any associate agreement entered into on or after October 1, 2018.

The Act does not apply to non-compete covenants that are included in practice sale agreements. It also does not apply to post-termination non-solicitation or non-disclosure covenants in any agreements, nor prohibitions on competition or outside activity prohibition in employment agreements that apply during the term of an associate’s employment. The Act also grandfathers and does not apply to agreements that went into effect prior to October 1, 2018.

Instead, the Act solely applies to non-compete covenants to the extent that they restrict the ability of an associate to compete in the same market as the practice following the termination of employment. The Act provides that a post-employment non-compete is unenforceable unless it meets numerous limits and standards.

Most noteworthy, and new, is a maximum limit of up to a one (1) year period, unless the employee breaches his or her fiduciary duties or unlawfully takes employer property; a requirement that the agreement state that the employee has the right to consult with legal counsel prior to signing; a restriction on enforceability against laid off employees or those terminated without cause; and, a requirement that the employer pay additional compensation to the associate in the form of “garden leave” payments of no less than 50% of the highest annualized base salary paid by the employer to the associate within the two (2) years that immediately preceded the termination date payable during the non-compete restriction period, or such “other mutually-agreed upon consideration” that must be stated in the agreement.

To ensure enforceability, a dental practice owner must now include non-compete language in new associate agreements with these limitations and include one of the two types of required additional compensation. The Act defines “garden leave” payments as payments that the owner makes to the associate during the “restricted period,” on a pro-rata basis throughout the entirety of the restricted period.

In contrast to garden leave payments, the Act provides practically no guidance with respect to what constitutes “other mutually-agreed upon consideration.” Such consideration need not be paid at a certain time(s) or in a certain amount. It must simply be agreed-to between the owner and the associate and reasonable to compensate the associate for the restriction on his or her ability to practice after termination.

An owner must take several factors into consideration in determining whether the non-compete agreement offered to associates should be supported by garden leave payments or other mutually-agreed upon consideration. While garden leave payments are certain with respect to their timing and amount, they are substantially more than most small practices are prepared to pay and are subject to the Massachusetts Weekly Wage Law (the “Wage Law”), codified as Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149 § 148. An owner who fails to make garden leave payments may thus potentially be liable to an associate for the remedies set forth in the Wage Law, which include treble damages, attorney’s fees, and other costs.

Until there is more guidance on what constitutes “other mutually-agreed upon consideration,” small practices are likely to consider using some form of alternative consideration to support the enforceability of a non-compete. But, until there is a change in the law or a court case ruling on the scope of acceptable “mutually-agreed upon consideration,” there is little certainty as to what amount of consideration will be considered reasonable and sufficient to support enforcement of a post-termination non-compete against an associate.

The health/dental law attorneys at Pierce & Mandell, P.C. are available to advise dental practice owners, buyers, sellers and associates on how the new Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act will affect their current or new contracts, associations, and transactions.

Feel free to contact Bill Mandell, Esq. at [email protected], Hannah Schindler Spinelli, Esq. at [email protected], Samuel Hoff, Esq. at [email protected], or Ryelle Seymour, Esq. at [email protected] for more information about our representation of dentists and dental practices affected by this new law.

https://www.piercemandell.com/health-and-dental-law/new-massachusetts-law-requires-dental-practice-owners-to-provide-additional-compensation-for-associa

Recent Federal Court Decision Addresses Massachusetts Non-Compete Act

The 2018 enactment of the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, G.L. c. 149, § 24L (the “Act”), changed the Massachusetts noncompete landscape by setting forth certain specific minimum conditions which must be included in any noncompete agreement in order for the agreement to be deemed valid and enforceable. One such requirement mandates that every noncompete agreement be supported by a “garden leave clause or other mutually-agreed upon consideration between the employer and the employee, provided that such consideration is specified in the noncompetition agreement.”

The Act defines “garden leave” as post-separation compensation paid to the former employee on a pro rata basis in the amount of fifty (50%) percent of the former employee’s highest annualized base salary over the 2 years preceding the employee’s termination. The Act requires “garden leave” payments to continue for the entire duration of the restricted period set forth in the noncompete agreement.

Many Massachusetts employers are simply not positioned to provide post-termination pay to their former employees. Thus, many employers choose to seek shelter in the portion of the Act that allows them to come to terms with their employees on “other mutually-agreed upon consideration” to support their proposed noncompetition agreements. However, Massachusetts Courts have yet to interpret the meaning of “other mutually-agreed upon consideration,” and employers have been largely left to guess as to what may constitute sufficient consideration to satisfy this portion of the Act.

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts shed new light on what may not qualify as “other mutually-agreed upon consideration” sufficient to satisfy the “garden leave” clause of the Act. In KPM Analytics North America Corporation v. Blue Sun Scientific, LLC, et al., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132167, *96-97 (D. Mass. 2021), the Court held that a noncompetition agreement which did not contain a “garden leave” clause or specifically articulate the “other mutually-agreed upon consideration between the employer and employee” violated the Act and was not legally binding on the employee. The implication of this decision is that the employment relationship on its own does not constitute sufficient “mutually-agreed upon consideration” to establish an enforceable noncompete agreement under the Act.

While the Federal Court’s decision is not binding on state courts, it holds persuasive authority and provides some insight on how Massachusetts courts may approach this issue in the future. It will take Massachusetts courts time to outline the minimum boundaries of what may constitute “other mutually agreed-upon consideration,” but employers are on notice that it must be more than employment and should be stated clearly in the agreement.

A noncompete agreement is merely one of a variety of restrictive covenants that an employer may use to protect its business interests. Non-solicitation clauses, forfeiture clauses, and, in the medical and dental context, agreements not to treat, are examples of other types of restrictive covenants that employers may enlist which do not fall under the strict new guidelines of the Act. Employers should consult with legal counsel to discuss the best ways to utilize these tools within the context of their specific business and industry.

Pierce & Mandell, P.C.’s experienced employment and health law attorneys routinely assist clients with drafting and negotiating restrictive covenants and represent both employers and employees in litigation concerning noncompete agreements or other restrictive covenants post-termination.

If you have any questions about how this developing area of law impacts your business or employment relationship, please contact Bill Mandell, Esq. at [email protected], Hannah Schindler Spinelli, Esq. at [email protected], or Scott Zanolli, Esq. at [email protected] for more information.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/recent-federal-court-decision-addresses-massachusetts-non-compete-act

Bill Mandell Serves on the Faculty of the Annual MCLE Hospital & Health Law Conference

Pierce & Mandell, P.C. Health Law Practice Area Leader, Bill Mandell, once again served on the faculty of MCLE’s Annual Hospital & Health Law Conference on October 22, 2021. He was the co-presenter on Representing Physician & Other Health Care Providers. Bill has served on the faculty of the annual conference on Massachusetts health law every year since 2003. The presentation can be access at https://www.mcle.org/product/catalog/code/2220201WVD.

Bill is also the co-author of the Chapter on "Representing Physicians and Other Practitioners” in the accompanying MCLE publication, Massachusetts Health and Hospital Law Manual, 2020 updated edition.

This publication can be found at https://www.mcle.org/product/catalog/code/2050182B00.

https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/bill-mandell-serves-on-the-faculty-of-the-annual-mcle-hospital-health-law-conference

When is an Employer Liable for its Employee’s Conduct?

Respondeat Superior, a Latin phrase which directly translates to “let the master answer,” refers to the theory that an employer should be held liable for its employee’s conduct. This theory is important in personal injury actions because bringing claims against a tortfeasor’s employer allows for recovery from additional insurance coverage, with typically larger policies. Thus, a plaintiff will want to bring such claims against an employer when possible.

Read more: https://www.piercemandell.com/pierce-and-mandell-pc-blog/when-is-an-employer-liable-for-its-employees-conduct