Opinion ID: 197358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A

Text: 55 Finally, Miniter appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Ohio on its claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (93A) based on breach of fiduciary duty. Section 2(a) of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A provides that [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. Section 11 extends § 2's general protection to commercial parties. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 11; Industrial Gen. Corp. v. Sequoia Pac. Sys. Corp., 44 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir.1995). Whether a particular set of facts constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices ordinarily is a question of fact. See id. The parameters of conduct the factfinder may consider, however, is a question of law. See id. at 44. 56 To fall within these parameters, the conduct which undergirds the complaint must reside within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory or other established concept of unfairness, or rise to the level of immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous, and result in substantial injury to competitors or other business people. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). At bottom, a claim under 93A must rest on conduct that attained  'a level of rascality that would raise the eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble of the world of commerce.'  See id. at 43 (quoting Quaker State Oil Ref. Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., 884 F.2d 1510, 1513 (1st Cir.1989) (internal quotation omitted)). 57 Miniter contends that the agency agreement placed it and Ohio in a fiduciary relationship, the contours of which derive from the established obligations imposed in the industry that an insurer is obligated to refrain from interfering with an independent agent's property right in expirations [and] the concomitant prohibition against engaging in direct dealings with the insured while the agent remains the broker of record. 58 We agree with Miniter that breach of a fiduciary duty might constitute a 93A violation. See Sequoia Pac. Sys., 44 F.3d at 44. We conclude, however, that Ohio did not breach its duty. Miniter supports its 93A claim with mischaracterizations of the record upon which we have elaborated. In short, Ohio did not make the misrepresentations Miniter claims, nor did it violate its written or oral agreements. The record further reflects that Ohio adhered to the industry custom as described by Miniter's expert, Frederick England. As such, Ohio did not breach a fiduciary duty to Miniter. Miniter's 93A claim based on breach of fiduciary duty, therefore, fails. 59 Affirmed. Costs to appellee.