Opinion ID: 202661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willfulness Determination

Text: 36 Finally, the district court's conclusion that Federal's conduct . . ., while not motivated by a dishonest purpose, spite, or ill will, was after February 6, 2003, a knowing or willful breach of its duty of good faith is also supported by the record. 8 The district court was convinced based on the evidence before it that Federal acted in bad faith by, among other things, racing to litigate without knowing all the facts and then stubbornly refusing to admit its error. Cf. id. (The district court, which saw and heard the witnesses, concluded that Continental had not sailed too close to the chapter 176D winds . . . .); Correa v. Hosp. S.F., 69 F.3d 1184, 1194 (1st Cir.1995) (To be sure, the evidence in this case is not particularly precise. But facts at trial, as in life, do not always appear in black and white. Juries and judges frequently must distinguish between manifold shades of gray.). Accordingly, the district court properly doubled the damages incurred after February 6, 2003. Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 406 Mass. 369, 548 N.E.2d 182, 188 n. 10 (1990) (In circumstances of knowing and wilful violation of c. 93A or of bad-faith refusal to settle, a plaintiff also may be entitled to double or treble damages under c. 93A itself.)