Morrison Mahoney partner Bridget Lopez recently obtained a defense verdict after a three-day bench trial in Holyoke District Court stemming from alleged c. 93A/176D violations. Said violations related to the claim handling and settlement practices of the client-insurer when adjusting the plaintiff’s bodily injury claim arising from a 2016 rearend motor vehicle accident.
The underlying tort action was resolved by arbitration, with a plaintiff’s award in excess of the insurer’s final settlement offer. The judge heard testimony from the primary claim adjuster, team manager, and defense counsel in the underlying tort claim. All explained that damages were not reasonably clear given the nature of the impact, the plaintiff’s history of symptomatic back pain leading up to the accident, and speculative lost wages where the plaintiff often received unemployment benefits when work was slow in his family drywall contracting business. The judge’s ruling relied heavily on the testimony of experienced defense counsel who aggressively pursued discovery undermining the plaintiff’s claimed damages, even though the arbitrator ultimately credited the extensive lost wages.
The judge determined that the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden in showing bad faith or that the insurer’s practices were not in line with industry standards. The judge further found that the evidence established that there was an “honest and reasonable disagreement” about the nature and value of the plaintiff’s injury based on the materials available to the insurer in its investigation and the advice of experienced counsel.
