R.W. Granger & Sons, Inc. v. J & S Insulation, Inc.

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment holding United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company liable for willful or knowing violations of G. L. c. 93A based on its post-verdict handling of a subcontractor’s payment-bond claim. The court upheld the use of the underlying surety judgment as the basis for calculating multiple damages and affirmed the award of attorney’s fees. It also addressed appellate waiver and the insurer’s violations of G. L. c. 176D’s settlement obligations.

Holdings

1. USF&G's postverdict conduct, including its unexplained delay, groundless denial of bond liability, and materially inadequate settlement offer after liability became reasonably clear, constituted unfair and deceptive acts or practices under G. L. c. 93A.
2. The court did not reach USF&G's argument that violations of G. L. c. 176D, § 3 (9), cannot support a G. L. c. 93A, § 11, claim because USF&G first raised that argument after judgment and thereby waived it.
3. When a plaintiff has obtained an underlying judgment and the defendant's G. L. c. 93A violation was willful or knowing, the amount of that underlying judgment is the actual-damages base subject to multiplication under G. L. c. 93A, § 11.
4. The G. L. c. 93A damages award was not required to be reduced by the amount paid to satisfy the underlying contract and bond judgments.
5. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the requested attorney's fees without an evidentiary hearing or by denying USF&G's motion for a new trial or rehearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether USF&G's postverdict conduct constituted willful or knowing unfair or deceptive acts or practices under G. L. c. 93A.
2. Whether the evidence supported findings that USF&G violated G. L. c. 176D, § 3 (9) (f) and (g), by failing to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement and by compelling J&S to institute litigation.
3. Whether the amount of the underlying surety-bond judgment, including interest and attorney's fees, was the proper base for calculating multiple damages under G. L. c. 93A, § 11.
4. Whether the damages award should have been reduced by payments made to satisfy the underlying judgments.
5. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees without an evidentiary hearing and in denying USF&G's posttrial motion concerning the fee award.

Disposition

affirmed