Citizen Portal
Sign In

Appeals panel grills parties on Chapter 93A jury instructions in cigarette‑case appeal

Appeals Court Oral Arguments · December 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Appellant argued the jury instructions and verdict form in a cigarette/93A case were deficient and that a directional 'stop here' omission forced the jury to resolve a statutory claim on the wrong basis; Philip Morris defended the instructions and argued several causes of action rise or fall together. The court recessed and took the case under advisement.

The panel heard a complex civil appeal in which the estate of Lorna Agnetti challenged jury instructions and the special verdict form in a case against Philip Morris, including a Chapter 93A claim and related common‑law causes of action.

Celine Humphreys, arguing for the appellant, focused first on the Chapter 93A instruction. She said the jury was not given a clear directive to stop if it had found against the common‑law causes of action and that the verdict form’s wording forced the jury to answer a 93A question without the directional instruction the trial judge should have provided. Humphreys argued the omission conflated distinct elements of fraud and statutory unfairness and that only the deceptive‑conduct portion of 93A (not warranty‑based theories) would need retrial if the court were to reverse.

Scott Chesson, for Philip Morris, replied that the court’s instruction and the verdict form were legally sufficient and invoked case law (including Makoviak, Donovan and Iannacino) for the proposition that, when a 93A claim is based on the same facts and theory as a common‑law claim, the causes rise and fall together. He also argued the fraud and half‑truth concepts had been adequately conveyed to the jury within the longer pattern instruction and that the record preserved the issue differently than appellant contends.

Justices pressed both sides on preservation — whether the appellant objected at the right time and in the correct form — and whether a retrial, if required, should be limited to the deceptive‑conduct theory. Counsel debated charge‑conference practice, the trial judge’s expedited procedure, and how the verdict form language would be read by jurors. The panel recessed and took the matter under advisement.