Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc.
90 Mass. App. Ct. 761
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Mark Adams was struck by a car driven by Daniel Thomas; Adams gave identifying/contact information to the insurer (Safety) while pursuing a claim against the driver/owner’s policy.
- Elizabeth Burgos, a Congress Auto Insurance Agency employee, had remote access (via Safety’s portal) to RMV and claim records; she used that access to obtain Adams’s identifying information and provided it to Thomas, who threatened Adams.
- Burgos had a prior federal firearms arrest in 2010; she returned to work, told her employer Gordon Owades a misleading account, and the agency did not investigate her arrest or fitness for continued access to confidential data.
- Burgos and Thomas later pleaded guilty to witness intimidation and conspiracy for the threat to Adams; Burgos admitted using her position to get Adams’s DOB, address, and phone number.
- Adams sued Congress Agency alleging negligent failure to safeguard personal information (and other dismissed claims). The trial judge granted summary judgment for the agency on the negligence claim and denied amendment to revive dismissed claims; the Appeals Court vacated summary judgment as to the negligence claim and allowed limited amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Congress Agency owe Adams a legal duty to safeguard claimant personal information? | Adams: employer had duty to prevent misuse of confidential claim/RMV data by employees with access. | Agency: no special duty to control employee’s criminal misuse of data; duty uncertain absent expert proof. | Yes — duty existed to a definable class of third parties to prevent foreseeable misuse of claimant information. |
| Was there a breach of that duty? | Adams: agency breached by allowing employee unrestricted access to her own claim info (conflict of interest) and failing to investigate her 2010 arrest/misrepresentations. | Agency: took reasonable steps; no evidence of negligent selection/retention; Coughlin distinguishes liability. | Jury could reasonably find breach on both conflict-of-interest and negligent retention/investigation theories. |
| Was the criminal intervening act of Burgos/Thomas a superseding cause absolving the agency? | Adams: criminal acts were foreseeable consequences of negligent entrustment and retention. | Agency: intervening criminal acts were unforeseeable and break the causal chain. | No — foreseeability of the intervening conduct was a jury question; proximate cause not barred as a matter of law. |
| Were Adams’s emotional distress damages insufficient as a matter of law? | Adams: alleged worsening sleep/anxiety after threat with supporting primary-care and psychologist evidence. | Agency: proof inadequate to show compensable emotional injury. | Evidence created triable issue; summary judgment on damages was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lev v. Beverly Enterprises- Massachusetts, Inc., 457 Mass. 234 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Heng Or v. Edwards, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 475 (negligent entrustment/retention and foreseeability analysis)
- Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 387 (expert testimony not required for issues within common experience)
- Coughlin v. Titus & Bean Graphics, Inc., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 633 (contrast where employer limited risk and took precautions)
- Sullivan v. Boston Gas Co., 414 Mass. 129 (standards for emotional distress damages)
- Zinck v. Gateway Country Store, Inc., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 571 (foreseeability and intervening causes)