Another decision finding wiggle room for attorney's fees in PIP case after insurer tenders payment of medical bills

I wrote here about a recent Appellate Division case, Metro West Med. Assocs. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., which held that payment of outstanding PIP bills by an insurer does not necessarily prevent the award of attorney's fees under the PIP statute. Another Appellate Division decision has come to the same conclusion.

Howard Physical Therapy provided medical services to Joel DaSilva for injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Howard submitted to DaSilva's insurer, Premier, a request for PIP reimbursement of medical expenses. Premier paid some of the bills and refused to pay the remainder, asserting that the balance was unreasonable "upon review by an outside company."

Howard took no further action for more than four years, when it filed suit. Two weeks after Howard filed suit, Premier offered to pay the balance plus costs incurred by Howard in filing and serving the complaint. Howard rejected the offer. Premier then sent Howard a check for only the unpaid bill amounts, and moved for summary judgment. The District Court allowed the motion for summary judgment.

In Howard Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Premier Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3855302 (Mass. App. Div.) the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment decision. It cited Metro West for the proposition that "the mere payment of the balance, in and of itself, would not justify summary judgment for Premier." Rather, the insurer must show that it had "a valid reason not to pay, and that it paid an invalid claim for reasons unrelated to its merits."

The court noted that although Premier had based its original decision, not to pay the full bill, on a review of the bill by "an outside company," there was no indication that the bill was reviewed by a registered or licensed practitioner in the same field as the practitioner submitting the bills, as required by statute. For that reason the Appellate Division reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision.

The court held, however, that Howard could not amend the complaint to add a count for breach of G.L. c. 93A, where Howard had not sent a demand letter prior to suit and Premier made a reasonable offer of settlement within 30 days after suit was filed.

Insured really has to send a 93A letter

It is standard practice for insurers and insurance defense counsel to deny that a demand letter met the requirements for a 93A demand letter. 93A suits are dismissed from time to time because the demand letter failed to provide enough information for the insurer to assess liability or damages.

In Robotham v. LaFortaine, 2010 WL 3327826 (Mass. Super.), the Superior Court dismissed a suit against an insurer because a pre-suit letter did not mention at least one of the following six factors:

1) express reference to 93A;

2) express reference to the consumer protection act;

3) assertion that the rights of the claimants as consumers have been violated;

4) assertion that the insurer acted in an unfair or deceptive manner;

5) assertion that the insured anticipated a settlement offer within 30 days; or

6) assertion that the claimant will pursue multiple damages should the claim be denied.

Court rules that insurer is not liable for low settlement offer in low impact case, or for not conceding liability

One constant area of contention between personal injury attorneys and insurers is damages from low impact collisions. A low implact collision is one in which there is contact between the vehicles but it is so slight that it often results in little or no damage to the cars. Plaintiffs' attorneys contend that despite the seemingly minor nature of the accidents, severe back injuries can nevertheless result. Insurers are dubious of such claims.

In Lanton v. Lin, 2010 WL 3038719 (Mass. Super.), Superior Court Judge Fremont-Smith held that an insurer did not violate Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A by offering $1,500 to settle a low impact case, especially where the jury had found that the plaintiff had not suffered any damages.

The plaintiff contended that the insurer had violated 93A on a second ground, because it did not concede liability even though the plaintiff had been rear-ended. That failure caused the plaintiff to incur additional attorney's fees to prove that the insured defendant was at fault. Judge Fremont Smith ruled in favor of the insurer on this issue as well. He held, first, that there were no damages because liability was not contested at trial and, second, that the plaintiff had not demanded in his 93A demand letter that the insurer concede damages and so it had no obligation to do so.