A federal judge sitting in Boston ordered Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company to pay $99,059.02 in attorney fees after ruling that the insurer had to defend a residential real estate brokerage in a copyright infringement lawsuit.
In an October 16, 2026, decision, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV reduced the brokerage’s $116,798.77 fee request because of administrative billing charges and extensive block billing. He also rejected the brokerage’s attempt to add a late-filed Chapter 93A claim after the court had resolved the underlying coverage dispute.
The attorney fee award follows Judge Saylor’s February 10 ruling that Mount Vernon’s real estate agents’ errors and omissions policy obligated the insurer to defend and indemnify Nichole Sliney Realty Team, Inc. (NSRT) against an architectural copyright infringement claim. Agency Checklists examined that decision in its March 2 article, Mass. Coverage: Why Catch-All Property Exclusions Fail for IP. The October decision addresses the separate question of the attorney fees recoverable by NSRT resulting from Mount Vernon’s breach of its duty to defend its insured.
The Underlying Coverage Dispute
The litigation arose from a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against NSRT, a Massachusetts residential real estate brokerage, and others over the alleged unauthorized use of architectural drawings in marketing materials.
NSRT had purchased a Real Estate Agents Errors and Omissions Liability Policy from Mount Vernon covering the period February 7, 2024, through February 7, 2025.
The policy provided coverage for claims arising from negligent acts, errors, omissions or personal injury in the rendering of professional services. It also obligated Mount Vernon to defend covered claims even when the allegations were groundless, false or fraudulent.
After NSRT tendered the copyright action to Mount Vernon in October 2024, the insurer denied a defense. Mount Vernon initially cited exclusions involving deceptive trade practices and personal profit or advantage. In a subsequent denial, it also relied on an exclusion addressing misappropriation, improper use and other conduct involving funds, account information or other property.
NSRT filed a declaratory judgment and breach-of-contract action in March 2025, which Mount Vernon removed to federal court.
In February 2026, Judge Saylor ruled in NSRT’s favor, rejecting Mount Vernon’s interpretation of the policy exclusions. As explained in AgencyChecklists’ March 2 coverage report, the court declined to interpret the exclusion’s reference to “other property” so broadly that it would encompass the copyright infringement claim.
The October decision addressed the attorney fees arising from that coverage litigation and the underlying copyright action.
Two Categories of Attorney Fees
Following the February ruling, NSRT filed a motion on March 9 seeking $116,798.77 in attorney fees incurred in connection with the two lawsuits.
The request consisted of:
- $80,279.48 for legal representation in the underlying copyright infringement action.
- $36,519.29 for the declaratory judgment and coverage litigation against Mount Vernon.
Under Massachusetts law, an insured that successfully establishes an insurer’s duty to defend may recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in doing so.
In determining the appropriate award, Judge Saylor applied the lodestar method, which calculates attorney fees by multiplying the hours reasonably expended by reasonable hourly rates.
The court cited Massachusetts and First Circuit decisions establishing that the fee applicant bears the burden of demonstrating both the reasonableness of the hours claimed and the applicable hourly rates.
Why the Court Reduced the Fee Request
Judge Saylor identified two deficiencies in the attorney billing records that warranted reductions.
The first involved administrative work billed at attorney rates.
The court identified tasks performed by attorney Marissa K. Thomas, including sending certified mail, formatting responses, electronic filing, completing summonses and combining prior invoices.
Citing First Circuit precedent distinguishing legal work from clerical or administrative tasks, Judge Saylor determined that these activities should be compensated at half the attorney’s normal billing rate.
The second reduction involved block billing, the practice of combining multiple activities into a single time entry rather than separately recording the time spent on individual tasks.
The court found that 108.3 of the 207.4 hours submitted, approximately 52%, had been block-billed.
Judge Saylor explained that block billing complicates a court’s ability to determine whether the time claimed for particular legal services was reasonable.
He imposed a 15% reduction in the requested attorney fees.
The judge also noted a mitigating circumstance. Although more than half the hours were block-billed, relatively few of those entries covered extended periods. Shorter entries made it easier to assess whether the time spent was reasonable.
Accordingly, the court concluded that a 15% reduction, rather than a larger deduction, was appropriate.
After applying the reductions, Judge Saylor ordered Mount Vernon to pay $99,059.02 in attorney fees, or $17,739.75 less than NSRT originally requested.
Additional Fees Left Undecided
The court also addressed a supplemental affidavit submitted by NSRT on June 10, 2026, identifying another $72,315.50 in attorney fees incurred since March 9.
Judge Saylor did not determine whether those additional fees were reasonable or recoverable.
In a footnote, the court explained that NSRT had not specifically moved for an award of the supplemental fees. Consequently, the court declined to address whether or how they should be compensated.
The October 16 order therefore awarded $99,059.02 without deciding the additional amount identified in the supplemental affidavit.
The Rejected Chapter 93A Amendment
In a separate ruling, Judge Saylor denied NSRT’s motion to amend its complaint to add a claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11.
NSRT sought to allege unfair claims-handling practices, including misrepresentations concerning policy provisions, failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failure to provide an adequate explanation for the coverage denial.
Mount Vernon opposed the amendment, arguing that NSRT presented no new specific factual allegations and had waited too long to assert the claim.
Judge Saylor agreed.
The court found that NSRT had identified no new facts supporting the proposed Chapter 93A claim. NSRT also acknowledged that it had considered Mount Vernon’s claims handling unfair from the outset but had chosen not to include a Chapter 93A claim when it filed its original complaint in March 2025.
NSRT argued that the amendment would not cause undue delay because discovery had not commenced.
The judge rejected that argument, explaining that the court had already resolved the original duty-to-defend and indemnification issues as matters of contract interpretation. Additional discovery was unnecessary to resolve those claims.
Permitting the amendment would require extending litigation that had otherwise been resolved and would delay Mount Vernon’s intended appeal of the coverage ruling.
The court also recognized that Chapter 93A could potentially permit treble damages unavailable under the original breach-of-contract claim. That possibility did not justify allowing the late amendment.
The court’s decision was procedural. It did not determine whether Mount Vernon’s claims handling actually violated Chapter 93A.
The Court’s Final Order
The October 16 order granted NSRT’s motion for attorney fees in part, awarding $99,059.02, and denied leave to amend the complaint.
The ruling applies existing Massachusetts and First Circuit principles governing recovery and calculation of reasonable attorney fees. It also leaves the supplemental fee request unaddressed.
Mount Vernon had indicated that it intended to appeal the underlying coverage ruling. The October order does not establish whether an appeal had been filed.
Case: Nichole Sliney Realty Team, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 25-11145-FDS, Memorandum and Order dated October 16, 2026.
Owen Gallagher
Insurance Coverage Legal Expert/Co-Founder & Publisher of Agency Checklists
Interested in connecting with me? Call me directly at 617-598-3801.
