Calandro v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

Filing 184

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re 173 MOTION to Alter Judgment. Plaintiff has moved to alter or amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial (Dkt. No. 173 ). He argues, among other things, that the Court made erroneous findings of fact. I deny the motion on the ground that the arguments largely rehash those made at trial. See ORDER for Details. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
GARRICK CALANDRO, AS
)
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
)
GENEVIEVE CALANDRO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action
v.
)
No. 15-10533-PBS
)
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
)
SERVICES,
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
June 7, 2018
Saris, C.J.
Plaintiff has moved to alter or amend the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and Judgment or in the Alternative for a
New Trial (Dkt. No. 173). He argues, among other things, that
the Court made erroneous findings of fact. I deny the motion on
the ground that the arguments largely rehash those made at
trial. However, I do clarify one point.
Plaintiff challenges my factual finding, made in a
footnote, that “[t]here is no evidence that Blair independently
evaluated the case.” Dkt. No. 169 at 8 n.3. Plaintiff argues
this finding is incorrect because Ms. Blair acknowledged she did
do an independent evaluation of the case. He relies primarily on
a colloquy at trial regarding an evaluation in February 2014.
The Court asked Ms. Blair what she viewed as her duty as an
1

adjuster in February 2014 when Ms. Blair decided there was “no
chance” they were going to win the litigation. Trial Tr. 2-36.
Ms. Blair answered: “Well I did do an evaluation or an
assessment of what the damages were. Also I took into
consideration that there was a codefendant on this case, spoke
with them on this.” Trial Tr. 2-36. On February 7, 2014,
Lawrence J. Kenney, an experienced attorney from Sloane and
Walsh, LLP, sent Ms. Blair a written pretrial report stating
that the verdict value was in the $300,000 to $500,000 range.
Trial Ex. 51. That valuation did not change over the course of
the Calandro case. Trial Tr. 2-114. Kenney had been involved in
valuing the case by mid-December 2013. Trial Ex. 23.
Accordingly, on February 6, 2014, when the joint settlement
offer of $275,000 was made, Ms. Blair did not “independently”
evaluate the case but worked with the codefendant in reaching a
valuation, which was confirmed by experienced trial counsel.
This offer was rejected on February 17, 2014. Defendants were
told $500,000 was non-negotiable.
Plaintiff emphasizes that Ms. Blair’s first valuation of
the case in December 2013 was independent, and is “smoking gun”
evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith. See Trial Ex. 71
(email from Mary Blair to Paul Kemp dated December 20, 2013,
stating, “Liability is problematic and we have estimated
exposure of $250K to each defendant.”). It is unlikely that this
2

earlier evaluation was made “independently” by Ms. Blair since
Mr. Kenney was already involved. In any event, the debate over
whether the evaluation was “independent” is a red herring.
Plaintiff argues that based on this December 2013 valuation,
Defendant should have instantly made a joint settlement offer of
$500,000. The delay of about six weeks and a lower offer of
$275,000 are not “smoking guns” since the valuation of the case
did not change, and the initial offer in February 2014 was not
unreasonable in light of the valuation range of $300,000 to
$500,000.

/s/ Patti B. Saris
Honorable Patti B. Saris
Chief U.S. District Judge

3

.