Opinion ID: 203566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Chapter 93A ClaimEvidence of a Policy-Limit Offer

Text: Doe contends that the jury verdict in favor of National Union as to her Chapter 93A claim is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Doe's theory at trial was that National Union had violated Chapter 93A by failing to make a reasonable offer of settlement in the policy amount, even if the policy limit was $100,000. National Union contended that it had made a $100,000 offer of settlement. Doe urges on appeal that no reasonable juror could conclude that such an offer was made. We disagree. Although the issue was disputed at trial, there was ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that National Union offered to settle Doe's claim for $100,000. National Union's witnesses described at least two occasions when they made such an offer. Janette Woodbury, a director in National Union's complex claims unit who managed Doe's claim for National Union, testified that she made an offer to one of Doe's lawyers, Richard Brody, by telephone in approximately February 1999, and that Brody rejected this offer. I told him [Brody] that there was only $100,000 coverage available in the case and that I was offering the money as settlement if it could settle the case and preclude further litigation. . . . . He [Brody] said that $100,000 was not going to settle the case and that HES was going to have to come to the table, was his term, with some money of their own. J.A. at 2439-40. Woodbury also testified that she told one of the defense lawyers retained by National Union, Daniel Gibson, about this conversation. Gibson testified at trial, and his testimony confirmed that a $100,000 offer had been made and rejected: I had a discussion with Rick [Brody] in which I said to Rick I understand that a hundred thousand dollars has been offered to settle the case. And he said it has and it will not, my demand is 3 million and there's other assets we can collect against. J.A. at 2832. Finally, Woodbury testified that she followed up by reiterating her offer to Brody in June 1999 when she told Brody I still only had a hundred thousand dollars available and Brody basically again said that the hundred thousand wasn't going to settle the case and that our insured was going to have to contribute some money to get... the case settled. J.A. at 2460. Brody testified that neither Woodbury nor anyone else had ever made an offer to settle Doe's claim for $100,000. J.A. at 2617. However, the fact that Brody's testimony conflicts with Woodbury's certainly does not entitle Doe to judgment as a matter of law on her Chapter 93A claim. It is precisely the jury's role to resolve such conflicting factual testimony. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that National Union offered to settle Doe's claim for $100,000. [10]