Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)

Citation
Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
Parent Document
Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2019-02-13

Full Text

1,184 chars
Egleston contends, however, that Molloy's correspondence to Progressive cannot constitute a business record of Progressive since it merely received the correspondence. Yet, documents received and relied on in the regular course of business may become the business records of the receiving party so long as they carry sufficient "indicia of reliability." Commonwealth v. Fulgiam, 477 Mass. 20, 40 (2017). Here, Progressive's claims supervisor testified that Progressive receives and relies upon letters of representation in its claims handling process, sending all subsequent communications to claimants through their attorneys. As attorneys in the Commonwealth owe a duty to be truthful in their statements to third parties, see Mass. R. Prof. C. 4.1, as appearing in 471 Mass. 1438 (2015), these letters of representation bear sufficient "indicia of reliability." Fulgiam, 477 Mass. at 40. As Molloy's letter of representation was properly admitted in evidence under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, it was competent to prove the matter asserted therein, namely, that Molloy represented Gelibert. See G. L. c. 233, § 78 ; Mass. G. Evid. § 803(6)(A) (2018).