Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chapter 93A Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs whether negligent misrepresentation and withheld indemnity can trigger Chapter 93A damages
Summary
The panel heard competing views over whether a jury finding of negligent misrepresentation plus a later refusal to honor an indemnity can justify enhanced relief under G.L. c. 93A, with appellants urging ordinary contract damages and appellees pointing to credibility findings and alleged egregious conduct.
The Appeals Court heard argument in Allen Anttoall and another v. Cape Club of Sharon LLC (2024P1425), a dispute over whether a negligent misrepresentation and a later refusal to fulfill an indemnity clause can support Chapter 93A's enhanced damages and attorney fees.
Appellants’ counsel Robert Shaw said the jury found only negligent misrepresentation and that ordinary contract or tort damages would be the appropriate remedy. Shaw argued the trial record lacks evidence of willful or knowing misconduct that the Supreme Judicial Court’s cases require for 93A enhancements, and he pressed for deference to the standard that 93A should not be treated as a universal damage‑multiplier for contract disputes.
Opposing counsel described the judge’s credibility findings — including that certain witnesses were not believed and that statements were repeated to induce the transaction — and urged that the totality of conduct could reasonably be characterized as ‘egregious’ under 93A precedent. The panel asked follow‑up questions about the proper standard of review (de novo legal questions versus abuse of discretion for a factual finding) and about whether the harms claimed were essentially ordinary contract losses or the type of unfair practices 93A is designed to deter.
The court also explored successor‑liability and intra‑enterprise arguments the parties raised about who stood in the club’s shoes for indemnity purposes, and counsel debated whether the record preserved challenges to the amount and reasonableness of attorney fees.
The panel reserved decision; oral argument highlighted divisions over when a court may convert a negligent‑misrepresentation finding into a statutory unfair‑practice award.
