Swanson v. Bankers Life Co.

Decision Date07 June 1983
Citation389 Mass. 345,450 N.E.2d 577
PartiesMary L. SWANSON et al. 1 v. BANKERS LIFE COMPANY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Francis J. Lynch, II, Brockton, for plaintiffs.

Harris G. Gorab, Boston, for defendant.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS and O'CONNOR, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

This case presents the question whether the defendant insurance company (Bankers Life) is liable under G.L. c. 93A for its delay in paying the plaintiffs' meritorious claim for insurance coverage of certain medical and hospital services furnished to Mrs. Swanson. The parties agree on the amount of coverage to which the plaintiffs were entitled, and Bankers Life ultimately delivered drafts totaling that amount to the Swansons' attorney. 2 The dispute, therefore, centers on whether, under G.L. c. 93A, § 9, as amended through St.1978, c. 478, § 45, the plaintiffs suffered any loss of money or property in the delay as a result of Bankers Life's use or employment of an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful under G.L. c. 93A, § 2(a ). 3

A judge in the District Court decided the case on cross-motions for summary judgment on the basis of affidavits and accompanying documents submitted by Bankers Life. The Swansons presented no affidavits. The judge entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount which the parties agreed was payable under the policy ($6,433.46) and then awarded damages separately under G.L. c. 93A at twice that amount, plus interest from January 19, 1979 (the date of the plaintiffs' G.L. c. 93A demand letter), and attorney's fees. On Bankers Life's appeal to the Appellate Division of the District Courts, the judgment was vacated. The Appellate Division concluded that there was no G.L. c. 93A violation, approved the judgment in the amount of $6,433.86, and ordered the award of interest on $6,433.86 from March 24, 1979 (the date on which the Swansons' counsel sent certain information to Bankers Life) to May 1, 1979 (the date on which Bankers Life sent the drafts in payment of its obligations under the policy). The plaintiffs have appealed to this court from so much of the decision of the Appellate Division that denied multiple damages. Bankers Life has not appealed. We agree with the disposition ordered by the Appellate Division.

The group insurance policy provided coverage for Mrs. Swanson through the calendar year following Mr. Swanson's retirement on August 31, 1977, for any condition existing on his retirement date, if she was at that time totally disabled. Prior to Mr. Swanson's retirement, their counsel sought and received clarification to that effect from an organization administering claims for Bankers Life. In the spring of 1978, Mrs. Swanson was hospitalized for the treatment of lung cancer, and the Swansons made claims under the policy for payment toward various expenses they had incurred. On June 28, 1978, Bankers Life's representative wrote Mr. Swanson that coverage for Mrs. Swanson's treatment was not available because her treatment did not relate to a condition causing total disability on the date of Mr. Swanson's retirement. Counsel for the Swansons replied that medical records would show that the lung tumor existed on August 31, 1977, and that hospital records in the insurer's possession should authenticate that allegation. The record does not show that Bankers Life had any such hospital records. Bankers Life on July 20, 1978, wrote Mr. Swanson requesting "a completed statement of claim form" from the attending physician. Numerous claim forms were then submitted. These claim forms, signed by the Swansons, authorized any physician signing the form to release "any information acquired in the course of examination or treatment." On one of the claim forms, received by the Bankers Life's representative in September, 1978, a physician stated under the heading "Date Symptoms First Appeared": "Lesion of right upper lobe noted on chest x-ray elsewhere in 1975." 4

On October 27, 1978, Bankers Life wrote Mr. Swanson that the bills submitted related to a "new condition" (one not existing on the date he retired) and that it could only consider charges in connection with disabilities existing at the time his employment terminated. A similar letter was sent on December 1, 1978. On January 19, 1979, counsel for the Swansons sent Bankers Life a demand letter under G.L. c. 93A. The letter made no reference to a condition existing on August 31, 1977, nor did it indicate where Bankers Life could obtain information establishing that the condition for which Mrs. Swanson had been treated existed on August 31, 1977. Bankers Life made no response to the demand letter within thirty days. On March 14, 1979, a representative of Bankers Life spoke with the Swansons' attorney by telephone, advising him that Bankers Life did not have any concrete evidence that Mrs. Swanson's malignancy existed on August 31, 1977. Counsel replied that he would obtain an authorization for Bankers Life to obtain that information, that certain hospital records would establish the necessary facts, that he was not abandoning the G.L. c. 93A claim, and that he had prepared a complaint but would not file it until Bankers Life had an opportunity to investigate. On March 24, 1979, counsel wrote Bankers Life enclosing an authorization signed by Mrs. Swanson and suggesting where relevant information could be obtained. The complaint was filed nevertheless on March 29, 1979. On April 10, 1979, Bankers Life sent out letters requesting information from doctors and hospitals, and advised counsel for the Swansons that it had done so. By April 20, 1979, Bankers Life had received a diagnostic radiology report indicating that "the lung lesion" was present in January, 1977. On April 23, 1979, Bankers Life called counsel for the Swansons to say that it intended to pay all benefits due under the contract. On May 1, 1979, Bankers Life sent drafts to the Swansons' attorney, the total of which represented the amounts due under the policy.

A policyholder may have a claim under G.L. c. 93A, § 9, as amended through St.1978, c. 478, § 45, for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the handling of claims for the payment of insurance benefits. See Dodd v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 373 Mass. 72, 82, 365 N.E.2d 802 (1977). The heart of the plaintiffs' claim is that Bankers Life had an obligation to investigate the claim with greater diligence than it did. They assert that the negligent failure to do so was an unfair or deceptive act or practice made unlawful under G.L. c. 93A, § 2. They point to G.L. c. 176D, § 3(9)(d ), as appearing in St.1972, c. 543, § 1, which defines as an unfair claim settlement practice "[r]efusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information." 5 We agree that recovery may be had for a deceptive act that is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Ubs Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Aliberti
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • October 22, 2019
    ...what the parties, respectively, "knew or should have known may be relevant in determining unfairness." Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 389 Mass. 345, 349, 450 N.E.2d 577 (1983).Viewed in the light most favorable to Aliberti, there is ample support in the facts alleged that the manner in which ......
  • In re Porter, 10–1130.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • August 16, 2013
    ...v. Duro Textiles, LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 887 N.E.2d 244 (2008), (quoting Morrison v. Toys “ R” Us, Inc., 441 Mass. 451, 806 N.E.2d 388 (1993)). 299.Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 389 Mass. 345, 450 N.E.2d 577, 580 (1983). 300.Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC Assoc., 411 Mass. 451, 583 N.E.2d 806......
  • Lily Transp. v. Royal Institutional Serv.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 5, 2005
    ...141, 151, 667 N.E.2d 250 [1996], cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1114, 117 S.Ct. 956, 136 L.Ed.2d 843 [1997]; see Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 389 Mass. 345, 349, 450 N.E.2d 577 [1983]; MacGillivary v. W. Dana Bartlett Ins. Agency of Lexington, Inc., 14 Mass.App.Ct. 52, 59, 436 N.E.2d 964 [1982]).15......
  • In re Pharmaceutical Indus. Avg. Wholesale Price
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • June 21, 2007
    ...or should have known," and "a plaintiffs conduct, his knowledge, and what he reasonably should have known." Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 389 Mass. 345, 450 N.E.2d 577, 580 (1983); see also Mass. Sch. of Law v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26, 41 (1st Cir.1998) (to state a 93A claim, "the defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...(N.D. Cal. 2011), 269 Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, P.C., 757 F. Supp. 2d 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), 687 Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 450 N.E.2d 577 (Mass. 1983), 923 Syncronys Softcorp., 1995 WL 870011 (FTC 1995), 21 Synergistic Int’l v. Korman, 402 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2005), aff’d ......
  • State Consumer Protection Laws
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2016
    ...257 (Mass. 2000). 1654. Datacomm , 489 N.E.2d at 196 (quoting 940 MASS. CODE REGS. § 3.16 (1978)). 1655. Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 450 N.E.2d 577, 580 (Mass. 1983). 1656. Mass. Employers Ins. Exch. v. Propac-Mass, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 435, 438 (Mass. 1995); but see Baker v. Goldman Sachs & C......
  • Evidentiary issues in coverage and first-party bad faith cases.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 61 No. 2, April 1994
    • April 1, 1994
    ...Ins. Co., 442 A.2d 920 (Conn. 1982); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reeder, 763 S.W.2d 116 (Ky. 1988); Swanson v. Bankers Life Co., 450 N.E.2d 577 (Mass. 1983); Klaudt v. Flink, 658 P.2d 1065 (Mont. 1983); Farmers Union Cent. Exch. Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 626 F.Supp. 583 (D. N.D. 1985......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT