Agnitti v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury that liability under G. L. c. 93A required a finding of liability on an underlying tort claim. The court vacated the judgment for Philip Morris on the c. 93A claim and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The court also held that the plaintiff waived appellate review of the trial court's failure to instruct on actionable half-truths in the fraud and misrepresentation claim.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff preserved his objection to the Consumer Protection Act instruction because the objection and its grounds were presented to the judge, and the judge's acknowledgment that both parties had lodged objections made a renewed postcharge objection unnecessary under the circumstances.
2. The plaintiff did not preserve his challenge to the failure to instruct that half-truths are actionable because he did not specifically request or object to the omission of that instruction at the charge conference or after the charge.
3. A Consumer Protection Act claim under G. L. c. 93A is not categorically dependent on liability for an underlying tort or contract claim. The trial judge therefore erred by instructing the jury that it could find a c. 93A violation only if it found the defendants liable on one of the plaintiff's tort claims.
4. The erroneous c. 93A instruction was prejudicial because it effectively narrowed the jury's inquiry to the more restrictive elements of common-law fraud and misrepresentation, and the evidence provided a plausible basis for a different verdict absent the error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff preserved his objections to the challenged jury instructions.
2. Whether the Consumer Protection Act instruction improperly required the jury to find liability on an underlying tort claim before finding a violation of G. L. c. 93A.
3. Whether the plaintiff preserved a challenge based on the trial judge's failure to instruct that half-truths may be actionable in fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Whether the erroneous Consumer Protection Act instruction was prejudicial and required a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded