Before asserting in court claims for relief under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute, G. L. c. 93A, parties must first send the responsible persons or companies involved demand letters invoking the statute and affording them an opportunity to reasonably settle these claims.  The First Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that such Chapter 93A demand letters need not be served on defendants under the service of process rules that typically apply to serving civil complaints.  Instead, claimants may properly serve their demand letters by simply mailing them to a company’s registered agent.  They need not serve such papers in hand through a sheriff or constable.  

Smith v. Dorcester Real Estate, Inc. , 732 F.3d 51 (Oct. 15, 2013).

Claims that there were safer alternative designs to the medical device implanted in the plaintiff and that her device contained a mesh component that had an unreasonable tendency to corrode sufficiently alleged breach of warranty and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection law.  As a result, the trial court erred when it concluded that these claims were speculative and dismissed the plaintiff’s case.  Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment was reversed, and the plaintiff’s claims remanded for further proceedings.

Allen v. Boston Scientific Corp., 84 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (October 9, 2013).      

An employee’s claim for sexual harassment and discrimination under G. L. c. 151B, section 9 must be brought within three years of the alleged misconduct.  This limitations period may be extended beyond the onset of the objectionable conduct if the statutory violations involved continue to occur and remain ongoing.  In the Sansoucy case, the employee alleged that her supervisors aided and abetted a colleague who sexually harassed her at work.  The Appeals Court ruled that the supervisor’s mere investigation of these complaints was at most “harassment” of a non-sexual nature and did not constitute a related “anchoring event” sufficient to permit an extension of the limitations period under the continuing violation doctrine.  

Sansoucy v. Southcoast Health Systems, Inc.,  84 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (October 8, 2013).