Morris v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America

• Decision Date: 14 July 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-P-1182.,04-P-1182.
• Citation: 66 Mass. App. Ct. 716,850 N.E.2d 597
• Parties: Judy E. MORRIS v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA & others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

850 N.E.2d 597

66 Mass. App. Ct. 716

Judy E. MORRIS v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA & others.¹

No. 04-P-1182.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Argued September 8, 2005.

Decided July 14, 2006.

Jeffrey B. Rubin, Boston, for the plaintiff.

Katherine A. Robertson, Springfield, for Unum Life Insurance Company of America & others.

Thomas H. Hayman, Boston, for Betty Rae Poppo.

Present: PERRETTA, BERRY, & COHEN, JJ.

PERRETTA, J.

After UNUM Insurance Company of America (UNUM) denied her claim for disability benefits under her individual long-term disability insurance policy (policy), Judy E. Morris, an emergency department physician brought the present action against UNUM as well as against two doctors, Peter Mirkin and Jane Pringle, employed by UNUM and against the insurance broker, Betty Rae Poppo, through whom she purchased the policy. In her complaint, Morris alleged that UNUM wrongfully denied her benefits, that Mirkin and Pringle intentionally misrepresented statements made by Morris's health care providers and intentionally mischaracterized the nature of her disabling condition for the purpose of denying her benefits, and that Poppo violated her legal obligations to procure a disability policy from a reputable insurer and to intercede with UNUM on her behalf after the denial of her claim. Morris's claims against Mirkin and Pringle were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Poppo and UNUM were granted summary judgment. We affirm the judgment.

1. Background. We summarize the unchallenged and, hence, undisputed background facts as set out in the memoranda of decision issued by each of three judges in allowing Mirkin and Pringle's motion to dismiss and UNUM's and Poppo's motions for summary judgment. In July, 1990, while employed as a hospital emergency room physician, Morris purchased the policy in question.² The policy came with a rider that provided, in pertinent part:

"[N]o benefit of any kind or amount is payable to anyone for any loss, impairment or disability due to, or contributed to by, or resulting from . . . psychosis, psychoneurosis, anxiety, depression or any adjustment, emotional or personality disorder."

At the time of her purchase of this policy, Morris had a history of reactive depressive episodes and had been treated for depression.

On October 10, 1996, Morris had an employment physical examination done by her primary care physician, Patricia McIlvaine. McIlvaine noted that Morris was experiencing daily headaches, feelings of depression, and burn-out but that she nonetheless "look[ed] good." She did not recommend that Morris either restrict or limit her employment activities. Later that month, Morris took leave from her employment. She was experiencing significant work-related stress and was having difficulty in keeping up with the heavy workload required of her as an emergency room physician. Her requests for additional staffing support were denied. At this time, Morris was considering leaving her employment when her contract expired in July, 1997.

On or about October 30, 1996, Morris was served with process in a medical malpractice action. She became severely depressed and suicidal. She traveled to her father's home in Florida where she remained for about two weeks. While there, she was treated by a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist. The psychiatrist diagnosed Morris as suffering from depression and as having an adjustment reaction with depressed mood, precipitated by work-related stress and the receipt of notice of the lawsuit against her. The clinical psychologist's diagnosis was that Morris was suffering from depression with suicidal ideation.³

Morris again saw McIlvaine on December 11, 1996. Although McIlvaine made no definitive diagnosis at that time, she was considering the possibility that Morris was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome.⁴ Sometime that month, Morris asked Poppo whether her policy with UNUM covered disabilities caused by chronic fatigue syndrome. Poppo advised Morris that it did.⁵

Asserting that she was disabled by chronic fatigue syndrome, Morris filed a claim for benefits under the policy the following month, January, 1997. In support of her claim, Morris submitted an "Attending Physician's Statement" completed by McIlvaine in which she listed chronic fatigue syndrome as her primary diagnosis and identified "depression [secondary] to fatigue" as contributing to Morris's disability.

Pringle, an internist, and Mirkin, a psychiatrist, participated in the evaluation of Morris's claim. Both Pringle and Mirkin resided in Maine, worked in UNUM's Portland, Maine office, and held the position of "Second Vice President, Medical Director" of UNUM. They reviewed her claim file, which included medical records submitted in support of the claim, and conducted telephone interviews with her Florida mental health care providers. Pringle also conducted a telephone interview with McIlvaine, who was in Massachusetts, and also exchanged correspondence with her.

Based on its determination that Morris's disability was "psychiatric in nature" and, therefore, excluded from coverage under the terms of the rider to the policy, UNUM denied her claim for disability benefits on April 11, 1997. After the claim was denied, Poppo wrote a letter to Morris expressing her regrets for the difficulties Morris had experienced in her dealings with UNUM and inviting Morris to call upon her if there was anything that she could do to help her. At Morris's request, Poppo sought to discuss the matter with UNUM, but it refused to do so. Poppo apparently refused Morris's further request that she write to and persuade UNUM to cover her claim.

2. The claims against Mirkin and Pringle. Morris's claims against Mirkin and Pringle are based on the theory that they participated in a scheme to deprive her of her disability benefits. More particularly, it appears to be her position that they intentionally misrepresented statements made by Morris's health care providers and intentionally mischaracterized the nature of her disabling condition for the purpose of bringing it within the exclusion of the rider to her policy. She also complained that Mirkin and Pringle engaged in medical malpractice by undertaking "to disrupt [her] relationship with her treating physicians by telling them false, untrue and defamatory things about her in telephone conversations."

As earlier stated, both Mirkin and Pringle resided in Maine, and worked in UNUM's office in Portland, Maine. Although Morris has not particularized which of the eight grounds set out in G.L. c. 223A, § 3(a) through (h), the so-called "long-arm statute," that she relies upon, we consider the two that seem most apt, even if not apparent: § 3(a) and (d).⁶ To establish personal jurisdiction over Mirkin and Pringle under § 3(a) or (d), Morris was required to show that they regularly did business in Massachusetts or engaged in other conduct described in § 3(d). See Intech, Inc. v. Triple "C" Marine Salvage, Inc., 444 Mass. 122, 126, 826 N.E.2d 194 (2005); Kleinerman v. Morse, 26 Mass. App.Ct. 819, 824, 533 N.E.2d 221 (1989); Darcy v. Hankle, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 846, 849, 768 N.E.2d 583 (2002).

Morris's claims against Mirkin and Pringle, residents of Maine, are based on actions taken by them while transacting business as employees of UNUM at its Maine office. However, "jurisdiction over a corporation does not automatically secure jurisdiction over its officers," Kleinerman v. Morse, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 824, 533 N.E.2d 221, or employees.⁷ See Roy v Roy, 47 Mass.App.Ct. 921, 921, 715 N.E.2d 70 (1999); LaVallee v. Parrot-Ice Drink Prods. of America, Inc., 193 F.Supp.2d 296, 300 (D.Mass.2002). Rather, the question of personal jurisdiction over Mirkin and Pringle is to be decided on the basis of the nature and extent of their individual contacts with Massachusetts.

Once the question of personal jurisdiction was put in issue by Mirkin and Pringle, the burden was on Morris to establish that the assertion of jurisdiction was authorized by G.L. c. 223A, § 3, and would be "consistent with basic due process requirements mandated by the United States Constitution." Good Hope Indus., Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1, 5-6, 389 N.E.2d 76 (1979). Intech, Inc. v. Triple "C" Marine Salvage, Inc., 444 Mass. at 125, 826 N.E.2d 194. Cepeda v. Kass, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 732, 736, 819 N.E.2d 979 (2004). Morris, however, has not only failed to show any error apparent on the record before us, she has omitted from her brief any discussion of Mirkin's or Pringle's contacts with Massachusetts as well as the statutory and constitutional standards applicable to a jurisdiction's assertion of in personam jurisdiction.

As shown on the record before us, Mirkin's role in UNUM's denial of Morris's claim consisted of a review of her medical records which he conducted in Maine, telephone calls from Maine to Florida, and the rendering of his opinion from Maine. Other than those activities conducted by Mirkin from Maine as an employee or agent of UNUM, Mirkin's activities, considered separately or collectively, fall far short of satisfying the "transacting business" requirement set out in § 3(a). See Hahn v. Vermont Law Sch., 698 F.2d 48, 52 (1st Cir.1983).

Pringle participated in two telephone calls with McIlvaine concerning Morris's condition and abilities. Pringle also sent two letters to McIlvaine in Massachusetts concerning Morris's condition and abilities. The first letter from Pringle, dated March 19, 1997, confirmed the substance of their telephone conversations. In the second letter, dated May 19, 1997, Pringle confirmed the outcome of her evaluation and the bases for the determination.⁸ By a letter dated June 28, 1997 Pringle also responded to a letter that she had received from Morris.

Notwithstanding the limited amount of this "back and forth" correspondence, the record shows that Pringle's in-forum contacts amounted to a single, isolated...