Attorneys Scott T. Ober and Casey L. McCaffrey recently obtained a defense verdict for an insurance carrier following a bench trial on a plaintiff’s claim for violations of G.L. c. 93A and 176D in the Hampden County Superior Court. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the defendant’s insured rear ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant insurer accepted liability for the accident but disputed portions of the plaintiff’s medical treatment as being unrelated to the subject accident and/or excessive. After pre-suit settlement negotiations failed, the plaintiff commenced suit against both the defendant insurer and its insured, alleging that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and failed effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of the plaintiff’s claim despite clear liability. The Parties ultimately resolved the plaintiff’s claim against the insured through binding arbitration and the plaintiff proceeded to trial against the insurer on the G.L. c. 93A claim.
At the trial, the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that the Court should not consider the insurer’s conduct after it responded to the plaintiff’s 93A demand for purposes of whether the insurer acted in bad faith. The plaintiff maintained an argument that the insurer’s investigation was unreasonable because it did not obtain an expert opinion prior to responding to her 93A demand and instead relied on its claims adjuster and claims evaluation tools to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff further argued that the insurer’s conduct forced the plaintiff to commence suit and delayed her from obtaining settlement funds.
Attorneys Ober and McCaffrey asserted that liability for plaintiff’s claim was never reasonably clear under Massachusetts law because the insurer had a good faith dispute as to the extent of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Defense counsel submitted evidence that the insurer obtained an expert medical opinion which supported its position regarding the plaintiff’s medical treatment being excessive. They further argued that, despite liability not being reasonably clear, the insurer made several reasonable settlement offers to the plaintiff. Defense counsel retained an expert witness who testified at trial that the defendant insurer complied with all accepted practices of the insurance industry. The Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant insurer, finding that its investigation was reasonable, liability was never reasonably clear, and the insurer’s settlement offers were fair and reasonable.
Up Next...
