Travelers Sues Hanover in Federal Court Over Massachusetts Slip-and-Fall Claim
Boston, MA – August 26, 2025 – Travelers Property Casualty Company of America has filed a lawsuit against The Hanover Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sparking a legal battle between two insurance giants over responsibility for a slip-and-fall claim. The case, filed on August 22, 2025, centers on a January 25, 2022, incident at a commercial property in Marlborough, Massachusetts, and could have significant implications for how insurers handle additional insured coverage in the commercial insurance sector.
Background of the Dispute
The lawsuit stems from a negligence claim brought by Thierry Hygino, who alleges he was injured after slipping on snow and ice in the parking lot of a property known as “The Point” at 27 Christie Way. Hygino is seeking at least $113,167 in damages and has named PP Hudson Investors, LLC, PP Wheeler Investors, LLC, and Rosado and Sons, Inc. as defendants in a lawsuit pending in Middlesex Superior Court. Travelers is currently providing a defense for PP Hudson and PP Wheeler in that case but argues that Hanover should bear the primary responsibility.
According to the complaint, Panco Management of NJ, LLC manages the property, and Rosado and Sons, Inc. was contracted for snow removal under a September 21, 2021, agreement. This contract allegedly required Rosado to carry commercial general liability insurance and name PP Wheeler, PP Hudson, and Panco as additional insureds on a primary, non-contributory basis. Travelers claims its policy covers PP Hudson and PP Wheeler, while Hanover’s policy covers Rosado, with an endorsement extending additional insured status to entities like PP Hudson and PP Wheeler for liabilities caused by Rosado’s actions.
Core of the Legal Conflict
Travelers alleges that Hanover’s policy should take precedence, as the snow removal contract makes Hanover’s coverage primary for claims arising from Rosado’s work. Since June 9, 2022, Travelers has repeatedly demanded that Hanover defend and indemnify PP Hudson and PP Wheeler, providing documentation to confirm the incident occurred at the contracted property and was tied to Rosado’s snow removal duties. Hanover has denied these tenders, disputing the loss location and whether Rosado was negligent.
In its federal lawsuit (Case #: 4:25-cv-40128), Travelers seeks a court declaration that:
- Hanover is obligated to defend and indemnify PP Hudson and PP Wheeler as additional insureds.
- Hanover’s coverage is primary, with Travelers’ coverage being excess.
- Travelers is entitled to reimbursement for all defense costs incurred, plus legal fees.
Broader Implications
This case highlights the complexities of insurance coverage disputes, particularly when multiple policies and contractual obligations overlap. The outcome could influence how insurers interpret and prioritize additional insured clauses, a common feature in commercial contracts. As noted by industry observers, clear contract language is critical to avoiding such disputes, and this case may set a precedent for resolving similar conflicts in the future.
Slip-and-fall cases, like Hygino’s, are inherently challenging, requiring plaintiffs to prove property owner negligence and causation. In this instance, the dispute between Travelers and Hanover underscores the additional layer of complexity when insurers disagree on liability allocation. The industry is closely watching, as the ruling could affect risk management practices and insurance pricing for commercial properties.
Next Steps
As of August 22, 2025, the case remains in the early stages, with Travelers’ complaint setting the stage for Hanover’s response. The court’s decision will hinge on the interpretation of the snow removal contract, the insurance policies, and evidence of Rosado’s alleged negligence. Meanwhile, the underlying Middlesex Superior Court case continues, with Travelers footing the defense costs for PP Hudson and PP Wheeler.
For more details, interested parties can access the filing via the SEC’s EDGAR database or the PacerMonitor system under case number 4:25-cv-40128.
Sources: Insurance Business America, PacerMonitor
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance.