Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9

A consumer cannot contractually shorten the four-year limitations period applicable to a Section 9 claim.

Anderson v. Comcast, Corp. · filed 2007-08-23

Given the language of the Supreme Judicial Court in Canal, and the importance accorded to the four-year statute of limitations for consumers by the legislature, we conclude that this four-year statute of limitations was not waivable by Anderson in his agreement with Comcast. The one-year statute of limitations in the agreement is thus incompatible with his statutory rights under Chapter 93A.

A contractual limitation period cannot shorten the time to bring a Section 9 consumer protection claim based on deceit.

Brown v. Sav. Bank Life Ins. Co. of Mass. · filed 2018-07-18

Finally, however one might construe the contract language, imposition of a contractually shortened limitations period on tort-based consumer protection claims violates public policy.

When the court reserves a § 9 claim for its own decision, the jury’s findings on common law claims do not bind its findings on that claim.

Bachini v. Edwards · filed 2008-05-23

In making its findings, the court is not constrained by the jury’s findings on the common law claims, as the jury’s findings do not have a preclusive effect on the c. 93A claim.

In a § 9 action, the court may make its own findings because a jury’s findings on common-law claims do not have a preclusive effect on the consumer protection claim.

Bachini v. Edwards · filed 2008-06-05

Bachini seeks damages against the defendants for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A, §9. ... In making its findings, the court is not constrained by the jury’s findings on the common-law claims, as the jury’s findings do not have a preclusive effect on the c. 93A claim.

A private consumer action under § 9 is subject to a four-year limitations period.

Forster v. Town of Belmont · filed 2008-12-17

Also, since Forster’s c. 93A claim arose prior to his May, 2000 demand letter, the action, commenced in October, 2004, was time barred by the four-year statute of limitations. G.L.c. 93A, §9.

A private chapter 93A consumer claim is subject to a four-year limitations period that begins when the injury occurs.

Latson v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2013-02-27

The limitations period for chapter 93A actions is four years from injury. ... The four-year period, therefore, began to run on the signing date when the interest began to accrue. They did not send the required 93A demand letter, however, until August 2011, more than a year after the limitations period expired.

A § 9 claim accrues when the consumer is injured.

Genovesi v. Nelson · filed 2014-03-05

“In tort actions and actions for violation of G. L. c. 93A, the cause of action accrues at the time the plaintiff is injured.”

Section 9 requires a distinct injury from unlawful zip code collection; when the injury is an unwanted marketing mailing, the claim accrues upon the first mailing.

Monteferrante v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. · filed 2017-03-20

The collection of a plaintiffs zip code in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93, § 105 (a) is an “unfair or deceptive act” under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 9 (“Chapter 93A”), but not a cognizable injury to the consumer. ... Therefore, the limitations period for any given class member would begin when he or she received a mailing sent using an unlawfully obtained zip code.

A § 9 claim for unfair insurance settlement practices accrues when the plaintiff suffers appreciable harm from the settlement conduct, even if the underlying verdict comes later.

Hong v. Northland Ins. Co. · filed 2018-05-30

Any actionable injury or harm for unfair settlement practices here was appreciable some two months before the verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. This was the point at which the statute of limitations accrued and that accrual was more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed.

A Section 9 unfair settlement practices claim accrues when the plaintiff suffers appreciable harm from the insurer’s conduct, even if the underlying case has not reached a verdict.

Hong v. Northland Insurance Company · filed 2018-05-30

However, the plaintiff fails to recognize that the injury or harm alleged here was appreciable no later than when the defendant insurer rescinded its settlement offer altogether.

Section 9 does not provide a consumer remedy for a retailer’s sales tax overcollection when the retailer acts as a tax collector and the tax code provides exclusive refund remedies.

McGonagle v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2009-10-29

By contrast, c. 93A contemplates disputes between private parties; permits a period of four years for commencement of suit, G. L. c. 260, § 5A; allows for interest at twelve percent, G. L. c. 231, §§ 6B, 6H, and G. L. c. 235, § 8; permits minimum and multiple damages, G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3), (3A); and authorizes the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees, G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3A), (4). ... The specific tax code provisions should preempt the general c. 93A provisions.

Section 9 does not permit a consumer claim against a judgment creditor based solely on the seizure of a debtor’s vehicle to enforce a judgment.

Petralia v. 145 Marston St., Inc. (In re Petralia) · filed 2016-09-30(1)

Finally, Chapter 93A is inapplicable to NCA following the reasoning in Cady. NCA was merely the judgment creditor for whom the seizure of Mr. Pe-tralia’s vehicle was made.