Bill Belichick Sued by Painter Who Fell on Nantucket Property

By Yosi Yahoudai Founder and Managing Partner

April 6, 2026

Premises Liability

A painter injured while working at a Nantucket property owned by Bill Belichick has filed a negligence lawsuit seeking roughly $300,000 in damages. The case centers on a question that comes up often after job-site injuries: when does an injured worker stay in the workers’ compensation system, and when can he also sue a property owner?

According to the complaint, Andrew Jackson was painting at 45 Fair Street in Nantucket on June 21, 2024, when he slipped and fell on plastic sheeting or similar coverings left in the work area. He alleges the fall caused a severe right ankle injury, along with pain, medical expenses, and lost income. The lawsuit was filed in Nantucket Superior Court against Forty Five Fair Street LLC, the company tied to Belichick that owns the property.

Painter Alleges Unsafe Conditions at Bill Belichick’s Property

Jackson claims the work area was not reasonably safe for someone performing painting work there. In his version of events, plastic sheeting and other coverings created a slipping hazard, and the property-owning company failed to correct it or warn him about it.

That is the foundation of a premises liability claim. A property owner can face liability when a dangerous condition exists on the property and the owner knew, or should have known, about it but failed to fix it or give an adequate warning.

The lawsuit alleges exactly that: unsafe conditions remained in place, and those conditions caused the fall.

Why Workers’ Compensation Did Not End the Claim

Jackson reportedly already received workers’ compensation benefits through the insurer for his employer or subcontractor. This is important to consider because workers’ comp usually blocks an injured employee from suing his own employer for negligence after a job-related injury.

Workers’ compensation is built as a tradeoff. The worker gets medical care and partial wage benefits without having to prove fault. In exchange, the employer is usually protected from a civil injury lawsuit.

But that protection usually applies only to the employer.

If someone outside the employment relationship caused the injury, the worker may still bring a third-party claim. That is what this lawsuit appears to be. Jackson is not suing his painting employer. He is suing the property-owning LLC, claiming it allowed a dangerous condition to remain on the site.

Workers’ Comp and Premises Liability Cover Different Losses

Workers’ compensation and premises liability do not do the same job.

Workers’ comp typically pays for medical treatment and replaces part of a worker’s lost wages after an on-the-job injury. In serious cases, it may also provide disability benefits. What it generally does not provide is full compensation for pain and suffering.

A premises liability lawsuit is different. It is a fault-based claim. The injured person has to prove negligence, but the potential recovery is broader. If the claim succeeds, damages may include full lost earnings, medical costs, and non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.

That is why some workplace injury cases involve both systems at once. One claim provides immediate statutory benefits. The other tries to place legal responsibility on a negligent third party.

The Case May Turn on Who Controlled the Worksite

In construction and renovation cases, property owners are not automatically liable every time a contractor or subcontractor gets hurt. Courts often look closely at who controlled the area, who directed the work, and who was responsible for site safety on the day of the accident.

If a contractor handled the job independently and controlled the details of the work, the property owner may argue that site safety was the contractor’s responsibility. If the owner created the hazard, kept control over the area, or knew about the danger and failed to act, the argument for owner liability gets stronger.

Jackson’s complaint alleges the property owner failed to maintain safe conditions where he was working. That puts control, notice, and responsibility at the center of the case.

A Lawsuit Recovery May Have to Repay the Workers’ Comp Carrier

Even if Jackson wins a settlement or verdict against Bill Belichick, he may not keep every dollar.

When an injured worker receives workers’ comp benefits and later recovers money from a negligent third party, the workers’ comp insurer usually has a right to reimbursement for what it paid. That process is called subrogation.

In practical terms, the carrier may seek repayment for medical bills and wage benefits already covered under the comp claim. The worker may still recover additional money, especially for losses workers’ comp does not fully cover, but the earlier benefits do not simply disappear from the equation.

That is one reason these cases become more complex than a standard slip-and-fall claim or a standard workers’ comp case.

Why This Lawsuit Has Broader Interest

Belichick’s name drives the headline, but the legal issue is common. A worker gets hurt on a property owned by someone who is not the direct employer. Workers’ comp begins paying benefits. Then the injured worker looks at whether a separate party created the hazard.

That pattern shows up in house renovations, commercial build-outs, warehouse work, and construction projects across California and Massachusetts. The facts change, but the legal structure stays familiar: one claim through workers’ compensation, another against the party accused of creating or ignoring the dangerous condition.

The Belichick case will likely turn on who controlled the worksite and whether the property owner allowed a hazardous condition to remain. For injured workers, cases like this often involve both workers’ compensation benefits and a separate claim against a negligent third party.