Derek Gillis prepared an amicus brief for the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association (MassDLA) in an appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) involving consumer restitution and the discovery rule.
The appeal in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mega Life & Health Insurance Co., et al. concerns a trial court judgment against three UnitedHealth-affiliated insurers that included more than $50 million in consumer restitution and $115 million in civil penalties based on deceptive marketing practices. The case also raises questions about the evidence needed to establish consumer harm in large-scale litigation and when otherwise time-barred claims may proceed.
The MassDLA brief addresses two principal issues:
MassDLA argued that the Court should reaffirm its longstanding and settled law that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the action was timely commenced. While the trial court acknowledged that the Commonwealth did not present any evidence to establish the application of the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, it nevertheless awarded monetary remedies for the time-barred claims. If the trial court’s decision is affirmed, it will call into question the SJC’s precedent on the burden of proof for the statute of limitations and the discovery rule at trial. MassDLA advocated that the burden must remain with the plaintiff.
MassDLA argued that, to award damages or restitution, the conduct for which a defendant is found liable must cause the harm to be remedied. In Mega Life, the Commonwealth obtained partial summary judgment as to liability based on specific violations of Chapter 93A. During the remedies phase, however, the Superior Court awarded monetary remedies based on conduct for which liability was never established. This issue will impact cases where liability and damages are determined in separate phases. MassDLA advocated that, in a damages or remedies phase, the plaintiff must prove that the damages were caused by the liability found.
The SJC’s decision could have broader implications for how courts evaluate restitution claims, assess evidence of consumer harm, and determine whether claims are timely under Massachusetts law.
