Case Title: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Salaman

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13188

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13188 
 
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY  vs.  ALICIA SALAMAN. 
 
 
December 16, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty 
Mutual), appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this 
court denying its petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, and under the doctrine of present execution.  
Liberty Mutual sought interlocutory review of a District Court 
judge's order denying, in part, its motion for summary judgment.1  
We affirm. 
 
 
The case arises out of a complaint filed in the District 
Court by the respondent, Alicia Salaman.  She alleged that she 
was injured and her motor vehicle was damaged when a motor 
vehicle driven by another driver collided with her vehicle.  
Count one alleged that the other driver was negligent.  Count 
two alleged that Salaman's automobile insurer, Liberty Mutual, 
violated G. L. c. 90, § 34M, by failing to pay personal injury 
protection benefits.  Count three alleged that Liberty Mutual 
violated G. L. c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D.  Count four asserted 
claims against the other driver's insurer pursuant to G. L. 
c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D.   
 
 
In the District Court, Liberty Mutual moved for summary 
judgment as to counts two and three, the two counts that assert 
claims against it.  The judge granted the motion with respect to 
count two, concluding that Salaman had committed a breach of her 
 
 
1 The single justice denied as moot Alicia Salaman's motion 
to compel production of certain documents.  That ruling has not 
been challenged on appeal, and we do not address it. 
 
2 
contract with Liberty Mutual by failing to submit to an 
examination under oath.  He concluded, however, that there was a 
genuine dispute of material fact concerning Liberty Mutual's 
conduct in handling Salaman's insurance claim, and denied 
summary judgment as to count three.   
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner to 
"set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision 
cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse 
judgment in the trial court or by other available means."  Id. 
Liberty Mutual failed to carry its burden. 
 
 
Liberty Mutual contends that requiring it to go forward as 
to count three compels it "to engage in frivolous litigation and 
incur unnecessary costs," thus violating its "rights" relative 
to the summary judgment entered on count two.  The argument, 
however, "fails to address why the substantive error allegedly 
committed by the [District Court judge] cannot be remedied on 
appeal" from a final judgment or by other means, as rule 2:21 
requires.  DiBiase v. DiBiase, 423 Mass. 1003, 1003 (1996).  See 
Lavoie v. A Justice of the District Court Dep't, 484 Mass. 1055, 
1055 (2020) ("merits of the underlying legal issues that formed 
the basis for the summary judgment motion may be reviewed on 
appeal"); Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 
671, 675 (2008).  That Liberty Mutual may consider further 
litigation wasteful or inexpedient does not necessarily negate 
the efficacy of the ordinary trial and appellate process to 
vindicate its position.  See Bishay v. Clerk of the Superior 
Court in Norfolk County, 476 Mass. 1017, 1018 (2017); Rosencranz 
v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 1011, 1012 (2015).  And if, as it 
claims, it is forced to defend against frivolous litigation, it 
will have appropriate remedies available.  See, e.g., G. L. 
c. 231, § 6F.  Further, to the extent Liberty Mutual believed, 
as it now contends, that the District Court judge's denial of 
summary judgment was subject to the doctrine of present 
execution, its remedy was to file a notice of appeal and pursue 
an immediate appeal as of right in the Appeals Court.  See 
McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 Mass. 178, 186-187 (2008) 
(petitioner alleging right to appeal under doctrine of present 
execution not entitled to relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3; "there 
was nothing at all preventing him from asserting his claim that 
the doctrine of present execution applied by filing a notice of 
appeal and testing the applicability of the doctrine in the 
trial court and, if necessary, in the appellate court, if he 
believed it applied to his situation").  See also Elles v. 
Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671, 674-675 (2008).   
 
3 
 
 
The court's extraordinary power of general superintendence 
is exercised sparingly.  It should not be invoked simply to 
shortcut the ordinary process of trial and appeal.  See, e.g., 
Marley v. Bank of N.Y., 483 Mass. 1027, 1029 (2020); Pollack v. 
Kelly, 372 Mass. 469, 470-471 (1977) (interlocutory rulings 
generally not considered until case is ripe for final judgment; 
"court has been needlessly burdened in the last few years by 
these foredoomed, and therefore futile and unsuccessful, 
premature attempts to obtain appellate review of interlocutory 
matters").  See also Wright v. Department of Correction, 487 
Mass. 1025, 1026 (2021); Cappadona v. Riverside 400 Function 
Room, Inc., 372 Mass. 167, 169-170 (1977).  Liberty Mutual 
failed to demonstrate an appropriate occasion for exercise of 
the extraordinary power of general superintendence. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Jessica Bobb for the petitioner.