Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that consumers who purchased collision damage waivers containing allegedly unlawful exclusions did not establish an actionable injury under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A because their rental vehicles were not damaged and they suffered no loss. The court concluded that a statutory or per se deceptive act must still cause a cognizable loss to support recovery under chapter 93A. It affirmed summary judgment for Enterprise Rent-A-Car, while holding that chapter 90, § 32E 1/2, did not displace chapter 93A remedies.

Holdings

1. The enactment of G. L. c. 90, § 32E 1/2, did not displace existing private remedies under G. L. c. 93A for deceptive practices concerning collision damage waivers.
2. A plaintiff seeking relief under G. L. c. 93A, § 9, must prove that the unfair or deceptive act caused a loss; an act may be per se deceptive under § 2 without being per se an injury under § 9.
3. The plaintiffs could not recover because the allegedly noncompliant CDW terms caused them no economic, noneconomic, or legally cognizable loss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether G. L. c. 90, § 32E 1/2, foreclosed private relief under G. L. c. 93A for allegedly noncompliant collision damage waiver provisions.
2. Whether an allegedly per se unfair or deceptive consumer-contract provision establishes an injury under G. L. c. 93A, § 9, without proof that the deception caused a loss.
3. Whether the plaintiffs could recover under G. L. c. 93A when the challenged collision damage waiver terms did not affect them and they suffered no loss.

Disposition

affirmed