Opinion ID: 488518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bergeron's claims.

Text: 20 Mass.Gen.L. ch. 176D, Sec. 3 prohibits certain unfair acts or practices in the business of insurance. Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93A provides a civil cause of action to persons injured as a result of an unfair act or practice, including those prohibited under ch. 176D, Sec. 3. Mr. Bergeron asserted a claim under ch. 93A contending that Connecticut Mutual had violated several subsections of ch. 176D, Sec. 3(9) in the handling of his insurance claim. The district court concluded that in connection with Mr. Bergeron's insurance claim, Connecticut Mutual had violated ch. 176D, Sec. 3(9)(g), which prohibits [c]ompelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds. 20 Connecticut Mutual now argues that the district court erred in its interpretation of Sec. 3(9)(g). According to Connecticut Mutual, an insurer does not violate Sec. 3(9)(g) if it compels an insured to institute litigation when, as here, liability was not reasonably clear. 21 21 But even assuming that Sec. 3(9)(g) is not violated if the insurance company refuses to pay in the good faith belief that it has no liability, 22 Connecticut Mutual's conduct does not measure up to this standard. Once it became apparent that Connecticut Mutual might invoke the suicide exclusion clause, Mr. Bergeron broached the topic of a possible settlement. But Mr. Bergeron was informed by Connecticut Mutual that its policy was not to settle claims until after suit except for a small amount. Indeed, Connecticut Mutual did not make any settlement offer until trial, 23 and then it offered only a fraction of what Mr. Bergeron recovered. The district court specifically found uncontroverted evidence that Connecticut Mutual's failure to make a reasonable settlement offer was not a unique response to the particular circumstance of Mr. Whyte's death, but was rather consistent with Connecticut Mutual's standard claim settlement practice. In essence, the district court found that Connecticut Mutual's failure to make a reasonable offer was not predicated on a good faith determination that liability was not reasonably clear, and there is no indication that this finding of fact is clearly erroneous. 24 Even assuming therefore that an insurance company does not violate Sec. 3(9)(g) if its reason for offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered is a good faith belief that liability is not reasonably clear, 25 Connecticut Mutual's conduct was still in violation of Sec. 3(9)(g). 22 Connecticut Mutual next argues that even if it did violate Sec. 3(9)(g) with respect to the handling of Mr. Bergeron's claim, it was improper for the district court to award Mr. Bergeron damages of $25.00 and attorney's fees, because Mr. Bergeron did not prove that he was injured or adversely affected by the violation. We conclude, however, that the district court's award was proper. Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3) specifically provides for recovery in the amount of actual damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is greater, and ch. 93A, Sec. 9(4) provides for the recovery of attorney's fees in addition to other relief provided for by this section and irrespective of the amount in controversy. Therefore, it is clear that a plaintiff bringing an action under chs. 93A and 176D can recover $25.00 even if he can prove no damages, 26 and that an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff is also proper in these circumstances. Even if Mr. Bergeron must show that he was adversely affected before he can recover any damages or attorney's fees, 27 there is no question that Mr. Bergeron was affected by Connecticut Mutual's violation of Sec. 3(9)(g). As a result of Connecticut Mutual's violation, he was required to undertake time consuming and costly litigation, the very burden that Sec. 3(9)(g) was enacted to eliminate. 23