Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)

Citation
Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Parent Document
Carnelli v. Bell at Salem Station, 123 N.E.3d 803 (2019)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2019-02-25

Full Text

977 chars
Here, the judge properly dismissed the plaintiffs' c. 93A claims because their complaint did not sufficiently allege that they suffered damages because of Bell's alleged violations of the statute. See Hyannis Anglers Club, Inc., 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 560. Although the plaintiffs claimed that Bell violated c. 93A by "unjustifi[ably] refus[ing] to honor its contractual obligations" and requiring tenants to purchase additional insurance coverage, the plaintiffs did not allege any damages incurred as a result of Bell's conduct. See id. In particular, the plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege that they actually paid any additional sums for insurance coverage they allege was improperly demanded by Bell, nor does their complaint allege any amount of money damages incurred or claimed. Moreover, the plaintiffs' conclusory allegation that Bell violated its contract, without more, cannot sustain a c. 93A claim. See Polay, 468 Mass. at 388 ; Beverly, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 606.