The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a jury does not need to find liability on underlying tort claims to hold a tobacco company accountable under Chapter 93A, the state’s consumer protection statute. The decision comes in the case of Peter Agnitti, who sued Philip Morris USA over the death of his wife, alleging negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and Chapter 93A violations.
At trial, the Superior Court instructed jurors that a 93A violation could only be found if they also found Philip Morris liable for fraud or misrepresentation. The jury returned a defense verdict on all counts. On appeal, the court found that the instruction improperly conflated 93A liability with fraud, noting that a 93A claim based on deceptive acts does not require proof of reliance or intent to deceive. The panel also clarified that the plaintiff’s pre-charge objections preserved the issue for appeal under Rule 51(b).
The court emphasized that Chapter 93A is a standalone statutory cause of action, intended to protect consumers independently of other tort claims. Citing evidence that Philip Morris misrepresented the risks of smoking and marketed “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes as safer alternatives despite knowing otherwise, the Appeals Court vacated the 93A judgment and allowed the claim to proceed.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces that 93A claims are sui generis and provides guidance on preserving jury instruction objections at trial.
