LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc.
919 F.3d 86
1st Cir.2019Background
- LimoLiner (Massachusetts) contracted orally with Dattco (Connecticut) to repair a luxury coach, including work on an inverter; parties disputed responsibility for parts and whether inverter replacement was required.
- Dattco prepared a repair list that did not expressly list the inverter; mechanics nonetheless worked on the inverter in July–August 2011. Dattco issued an invoice for labor and some parts (excluding inverter parts); LimoLiner refused to pay and demanded return of the coach.
- LimoLiner sued for breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, replevin, and Chapter 93A violations alleging violations of Massachusetts AG motor-vehicle repair regulations (940 Mass. Code Regs. § 5.05).
- After a bench trial the magistrate found breach of contract in favor of LimoLiner (awarding damages) but rejected Chapter 93A liability and later found Dattco violated § 5.05(2)(e) and § 5.05(3); those regulatory violations were not appealed.
- On remand the magistrate held LimoLiner failed to prove that the regulatory violations caused any loss of money or property required under Chapter 93A; the First Circuit affirms, concluding causation is lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violations of AG motor-vehicle regs (§ 5.05(2)(e) and § 5.05(3)) establish Chapter 93A liability | Violations of the Attorney General's regulations amount to unfair/deceptive acts under Chapter 93A and support relief | Regulatory violations, even if established, do not automatically impose Chapter 93A liability absent proof of causation and injury | Court: Regulatory violations were established but LimoLiner failed to prove they caused any loss; no Chapter 93A liability |
| Whether plaintiff proved causation (loss of money or property) required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 11 | LimoLiner contends it suffered monetary losses from delayed/incomplete inverter repair attributable to Dattco's regulatory violations | Dattco notes the record shows mechanics worked on the inverter, parties discussed sourcing parts, and no evidence of overcharging or loss tied to the violations exists | Court: Plaintiff did not present evidence connecting the regulatory breaches to any loss; causation not established |
Key Cases Cited
- LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc., 809 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2015) (prior appellate opinion in same dispute)
- LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc., 57 N.E.3d 969 (Mass. 2016) (SJC decision answering certified question on applicability of regs to businesses)
- LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc., 839 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2016) (subsequent appellate opinion remanding for further findings)
- McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for per se Chapter 93A liability and related analysis)
- Hiam v. HomeAway.com, Inc., 887 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must prove causation for Chapter 93A recovery)
- Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 17 N.E.3d 1066 (Mass. 2014) (discussion of § 11 standing and policy behind Chapter 93A)
- Walsh v. TelTech Sys., Inc., 821 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 2016) (failure to prove factual and proximate causation is fatal to a Chapter 93A claim)
- R.W. Granger & Sons, Inc. v. J & S Insulation, Inc., 754 N.E.2d 668 (Mass. 2001) (Chapter 93A promotes fair resolution of business disputes)
- Armata v. Target Corp., 99 N.E.3d 788 (Mass. 2018) (Massachusetts decisions relevant to per se 93A analyses)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (appellate courts may resolve facts when only one reasonable conclusion follows)