Legal Opinion
Genest v. Commerce Insurance
Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
Decided April 26, 2010Published
1Opinion of the CourtCurtin, J.
Following a jury-waived trial, the judge rejected the plaintiffs argument that the defendant-insurer had violated G.Lc. 93A and G.Lc. 176D, §3(9) (f) in failing to investigate and settle promptly the plaintiffs claim for G.Lc. 90, §34M personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits. The plaintiff filed this Dist/Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A, Rule 8C, appeal.
Patricia Genest (“Genest”) sustained injuries in an automobile accident on April 26, 2005 while riding as a passenger in a vehicle insured by Commerce Insurance Company (“Commerce”). In May, 2005, she filed a PIP claim with Commerce. Commerce, in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Clegg v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Demeo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
- Fascione v. CNA Insurance CompaniesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
- O'Leary-Alison v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
- Provenzano v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.