In Gretzky v. AmGuard Insurance Co., the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts evaluated how insurers facing a 176D demand letter post-judgment may limit exposure under
Continue Reading Federal Court Reinforces Safe-Harbor Protection for Insurers in Mass. Chapter 93A Litigation
In Robles v. Selective Insurance Co. of America, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204595 (D. Mass. Sept. 2, 2025), Magistrate Judge Hennessy issued a report and recommendation granting in part
Continue Reading Mass. Court Limits Chapter 93A Claims Against Insurers in Robles v. Selective Insurance Decision
In Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184988, the plaintiff (the Insurer), as subrogee of the Assembly of Christians Gospel Hall Association (the Insured)
Continue Reading Recent Mass. Chapter 93A Case Highlights Key Distinctions Between Sections 9 and 11
In Sommer v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175878 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2025), the district court, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, analyzed the meaning
Continue Reading Federal District Court Cites Wrong Standard When Assessing Chapter 93A, Section 9 Unfairness Standard
On July 17, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling in Sivakova v. American Honda Motor Co., addressing whether plaintiffs had adequately
Continue Reading California Federal Court Allows Massachusetts Chapter 93A Claim to Proceed to Discovery
In Courtemanche v. Motorola Sols., Inc., at the defendant’s request, the district court certified questions about the plaintiffs’ Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 9 claims to the First
Continue Reading Surveillance Case Tests Chapter 93A Standing and Unfairness Standards
In Royal v. Metcalf, the Massachusetts Superior Court entered summary judgment under Chapter 93A for the plaintiff (an alleged debtor) against the defendant (the owner of a company engaged
Continue Reading Royal v. Metcalf Suggests Confusion About Massachusetts Chapter 93A Requirements
In Diprio v. Ground Up Constr., Inc., the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered the appropriateness of an award of attorneys’ fees to pro se litigants—homeowners who sued a contractor for violating a Massachusetts Home Improvement Contractor Statute (HICS)—and the proper measure of damages under 93A, Section 9.
Continue Reading Calculating Chapter 93A Damages: Takeaways from Diprio v. Ground Up Construction, Inc.
In Dworman v. PHH Mortg. Servs., the District of Massachusetts recently issued a decision that deals with various aspects of Chapter 93A jurisprudence. Some of the court’s statements about Chapter 93A, however, may benefit from clarification.
Continue Reading Mass. Chapter 93A Clarifications: Understanding Demand Letters and Contract Breaches in Dworman v. PHH Mortgage
In Sowa v. Mercedes-Benz Grp. AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, purchasers of certain Mercedes Benz vehicles from 17 states brought a putative class action against the automaker alleging that
Continue Reading Chapter 93A Notice Requirements in Multi-State Class Actions