Silva v. Home Depot USA Inc. et al
Filing
62
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered denying 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Danieli, Chris)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-12129-GAO
PATRICIA SILVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A. and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
September 17, 2013
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This case arises out of a slip and fall by the plaintiff at a Home Depot location in
Marlboro, Massachusetts. The plaintiff, claiming negligence, is seeking damages from Home
Depot as a result of the injuries sustained. Home Depot contracts with defendant Sedgwick to
handle the claims management process. The plaintiff is seeking damages against Sedgwick under
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A for unfair and deceptive practices in the claims
settlement process. The case was removed to this Court, and Sedgwick now moves to dismiss
(dkt. no. 19) the claim against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The complaint as originally filed claimed that that Sedgwick violated Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 176D 1, which regulates unfair and deceptive business practices by
companies in the business of insurance, and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A. The
plaintiff claims that Sedgwick tried to frustrate the claims process through various stalling
tactics. On November 16, 2012 the plaintiff and Sedgwick stipulated to a dismissal of claims
1
Damages for a violation of Chapter 176D are recoverable through Chapter 93A.
based on a violation of Chapter 176D but expressly provided that claims under Chapter 93A
would remain pending (dkt. no. 16). As a result, a principal argument made by Sedgwick in
moving to dismiss – that it is not engaged in the “business of insurance” and thus is not subject
to regulation under Chapter 176D – is no longer pertinent. The complaint otherwise avers facts
that could plausibly lead to a conclusion that Sedgwick committed an unfair or deceptive act or
practice in violation of Chapter 93A otherwise than by violating a stricture of Chapter 176D. See
Miller v. Risk Management Foundation of Harvard Medical Institutions, Inc. 632 N.E.2d 841,
846 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) (“Although we think the judge did well to look to the standards of c.
176D to aid her in interpreting c. 93A, we think she would have reached the same conclusion if
she had disregarded c. 176D and adopted the commonplace ethical view that a claims facilitator
ought not wear out the claimant by unduly delaying settlement when liability is clear.”)
For the reasons stated herein, Sedgwick’s Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 19) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?