Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
460 Mass. 500
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Casavants booked a seven-day Boston–Bermuda cruise with Norwegian for $2,135.50, paying a $628 deposit and remaining balance on July 10, 2001.
- They were informed the contract of passage included cancellation fees, including a 100% fee if canceling 14 days or fewer before departure.
- After 9/11, Casavants sought to reschedule due to safety concerns; Norwegian refused to reschedule and treated it as a cancellation with no refund.
- Casavants sent a 93A demand letter on August 22, 2002 seeking a refund plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs based on alleged unfair or deceptive practices.
- Norwegian disclosed a previously undisclosed refund policy (100% refund for objections to a contract term) only after the demand letter, and Kilgour affirmed the policy existed in practice.
- Trial focused on whether 940 CMR 15.04(2)(e) required disclosure of complete refund terms before sale and whether violation caused injury under G.L. c. 93A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norwegian violated 940 CMR 15.04(2)(e) by failing to disclose complete refund terms | Casavant argues undisclosed refund policy breached disclosure rule. | Norwegian contends prior disclosure not required in trial facts or policy not enacted at sale. | Yes; undisclosed policy violated the regulation. |
| Whether the disclosure violation caused injury supporting a c. 93A claim | Loss flowed from failure to refund promptly; injury from undisclosed terms and delayed refunds. | Any lack of disclosure did not cause loss given cancellation reasons and lack of reliance. | Yes; lack of prompt refund constituted injury and supported c. 93A damages. |
| Adequacy of the demand letter under c. 93A § 9(3) | Letter fairly described practices, injury, and relief; satisfied 30-day notice requirement. | Letter did not spell out every regulatory violation in detail. | The demand letter satisfied § 9(3) requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, Inc., 445 Mass. 790 (Mass. 2006) (causation required for c. 93A injury, not mere misrepresentation)
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (Mass. 2008) (causation and foreseeability in 93A damages; reliance not required)
- Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762 (Mass. 1980) (agency rule-making authority for 93A regulations)
- Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 366 Mass. 688 (Mass. 1975) (demonstrates purpose and function of a 93A demand letter)
- Spring v. Geriatric Auth. of Holyoke, 394 Mass. 274 (Mass. 1985) (demand letter specificity and settlement mechanism)
- York v. Sullivan, 369 Mass. 157 (Mass. 1975) (demand letter must enable review and settlement)
- Clegg v. Butler, 424 Mass. 413 (Mass. 1997) (demand letter need not list every statutory violation, but list practices)
- Cohen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 41 Mass. App. Ct. 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (claims must specify practices, not legal theories)