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
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
- Egleston Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 123 N.E.3d 801 (2019)
Full Text
867 charsEgleston's final claim is that, even assuming the admissibility of the correspondence, the substance was insufficient to put Gelibert or her attorney on notice of the EOU due to the mistakes in Progressive's July 1, 2011 letter scheduling the initial EUO. Whether Progressive's letters fairly put Gelibert on notice of the scheduled EUOs was a question for the jury. See Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 452 Mass. 337, 359 n.58 (2008) ("disagreements about how to interpret ... business records are to be resolved by the fact finder"). In the light most favorable to Progressive, the letters were sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that Gelibert had notice of the scheduled EUOs and nonetheless failed to submit. Egleston's motion for directed verdict on the defense of noncooperation was properly denied.4 Decision and order of the Appellate Division affirmed.