Subro Win: City’s Discretion Defense Under Tort Claim Act

---

Property damage claims arising from trees falling from municipal land onto adjacent private property present common scenarios for insurers. When a town or city owns the tree, questions quickly arise about the municipality’s responsibility. The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), G.L. c. 258, governs negligence claims against public employers, but it contains specific hurdles, including notice requirements and immunity defenses.

A recent Appeals Court decision, Citation Insurance Company v. City of Chicopee, provides valuable clarification on two key MTCA provisions frequently invoked by municipalities facing such claims.

In this case, Citation Insurance Company, as subrogee for its insured homeowner, sued the City of Chicopee after a city-owned tree fell and damaged the insured’s home. The City sought to dismiss the case before trial, asserting defenses based on improper claim presentment and the discretionary function immunity under the MTCA. The Appeals Court upheld the Superior Court’s refusal to dismiss the lawsuit, offering important guidance for Massachusetts property and casualty professionals navigating subrogation actions against public entities. This article examines the facts of the Citation case, analyzes the court’s interpretation of the MTCA’s presentment and discretionary function rules, and underscores subrogation’s vital role in these situations.

The Underlying Incident: A City Tree Falls on a Resident’s House Causing $43,000 in Damages

On February 25, 2019, during a windstorm with gusts reportedly exceeding 50 mph for several hours, a tree on city property fell onto the home of Mary Hebert at 66 Christopher Street in Chicopee. The tree stood in the “tree belt,” the strip of land often found between the sidewalk and the street, under the City’s control. The impact caused substantial damage to Hebert’s home, exceeding $43,000. Citation Insurance Company paid the claim under Hebert’s homeowner’s policy and sought to recover that amount, plus Hebert’s $1,000 deductible, from the City.

Evidence showed this tree did not pose an unforeseen risk. The City had known about the tree’s hazardous condition years before it fell. In 2013, the City inventoried the tree and recorded its condition as “poor” with a “moderate” probability of failure. The inventory also noted the tree had dead or rotting wood and had already caused “hardscape damage” by heaving the adjacent sidewalk through its growth.

Perhaps most significantly, the property’s prior owner, Laura Rosienski, had directly warned the City about the tree. In June 2013, Ms. Rosienski, concerned about the tree’s poor condition and the danger it posed to the house, sent a certified letter to the City detailing her concerns. The City, however, apparently took no action regarding the tree before Ms. Rosienski sold the home to Ms. Hebert in August 2016.

The City’s Forestry Department, responsible for the care and control of public shade trees under City Ordinance § 39-1, performed some pruning on the tree in May 2018 following a resident’s request. The City Arborist/Tree Warden, Christopher Scott, stated he was comfortable with the tree’s condition after that pruning. However, the City acknowledged it did not have a regular maintenance or inspection schedule for its trees, generally relying on resident complaints or “quick looks” after storms to identify potential hazards. This reactive approach contrasts sharply with the documented poor condition of the tree known since 2013.

The Subrogation Lawsuit and Procedural Posture

Citation, having paid its insured’s claim, filed a subrogation lawsuit against the City in July 2021, alleging negligence in the maintenance of the tree. The City responded with a motion for summary judgment, seeking to end the case without a trial. The City raised several arguments, principally:

1. Improper Presentment: Citation failed to properly present the claim under G.L. c. 258, § 4.
2. Discretionary Function Immunity: The Tree Warden’s decision regarding tree removal was a discretionary function immune from liability under G.L. c. 258, § 10(b).
3. (Other Arguments): The City also argued that G.L. c. 84 (governing defects in public ways) was the exclusive remedy and that Citation lacked sufficient evidence of negligence. The courts ultimately found little merit in the G.L. c. 84 argument as the damage occurred to a home, not to a traveler on the way. The Appeals Court deemed the negligence evidence argument inappropriate for consideration at this stage under the doctrine of present execution, though it noted the evidence of the prior owner’s warning.

The Superior Court denied the City’s motion. The City exercised its right to an immediate appeal (under the doctrine of present execution) specifically on the denial of its immunity-based defenses – presentment and discretionary function.

Demystifying MTCA Presentment (G.L. c. 258, § 4)

A critical first step in any tort claim against a Massachusetts public employer is proper presentment. G.L. c. 258, § 4 requires a claimant to present the claim in writing to the public entity’s designated executive officer (such as the mayor of a city) within two years of the date the cause of action accrues. This isn’t merely a procedural formality; its purpose is to ensure the government entity receives timely notice to investigate the claim’s validity, potentially settle meritorious claims quickly, avoid inflated demands, and implement corrective measures to prevent similar future incidents. Failure to strictly comply with presentment requirements bars the claim.

In Citation, the City argued that the letters sent by Hebert and Citation failed to meet the § 4 standard. The Appeals Court disagreed. It focused on Ms. Hebert’s letter dated March 1, 2019 – sent just days after the tree fell and well within the two-year deadline – addressed to the Mayor of Chicopee. The court found this letter sufficient. It clearly identified the claimant (Hebert), the date and location of the incident, the nature of what occurred (city tree falling on her house), the resulting damage, and the basis of the claim – asserting the damage “could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care had the [c]ity acted diligently to remedy or guard against this unsafe condition.”

The court emphasized that while strict compliance is needed, the presentment need not be perfect. It is adequate if it provides enough facts for public officials to reasonably understand the legal basis of the claim and determine if it’s a claim potentially recoverable under the MTCA. Significantly, the letter did not need to explicitly cite G.L. c. 258 to be valid.

The takeaway for insurers pursuing subrogation against Massachusetts municipalities is clear: timely, factual, written notice to the correct executive officer is paramount. While the notice doesn’t require legal citations, it must contain sufficient detail about the incident, the alleged negligence, and the damages to allow the public entity to understand and investigate the claim.

Unpacking the MTCA Discretionary Function Exception (G.L. c. 258, § 10(b))

Perhaps the most contested issue was the City’s claim of immunity under the MTCA’s discretionary function exception, G.L. c. 258, § 10(b). This provision shields public employers from liability for claims based on “the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty… whether or not the discretion involved is abused”. The core purpose is to prevent courts from second-guessing legitimate policy-making or planning decisions of the legislative or executive branches through tort litigation.

However, the term “discretionary function” is somewhat misleading, as the immunity is narrower than the word “discretionary” might suggest. The Supreme Judicial Court established a two-step analysis in Harry Stoller & Co. v. Lowell. First, did the government employee have any choice or discretion in their actions? Second, and more critically, was the discretion exercised the kind of discretion the legislature intended to protect – specifically, discretion involving “policy-making or planning”? If the conduct involves simply carrying out established policies or plans or performing operational functions and maintenance, the exception generally does not apply (The Stoller test), and standard tort principles govern.

Labeling something as “discretionary” does not necessarily make it so

Chicopee argued that its Tree Warden’s decisions about tree removal were inherently discretionary. It pointed directly to City Ordinance § 257-8, which explicitly states, “The discretion and sound judgment of the Tree Warden alone determines whether a tree shall be removed…”.

The Appeals Court flatly rejected this argument. While acknowledging the ordinance used the word “discretion,” the court held that a municipality could not grant itself MTCA immunity simply by labeling an employee’s function as discretionary in a local ordinance. The application of § 10(b) is a question of law for the court, based on whether the specific government conduct at issue constitutes policy-making or planning under the Stoller test.

The court reasoned that the Tree Warden’s decision about whether to remove this particular tree, especially given the prior warnings and known poor condition, did not involve policy-making or planning. It was an operational decision regarding the maintenance of city property and the implementation of the City’s pre-existing duty (established by ordinance and common law) to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others. The court contrasted this with potentially protected planning decisions, such as the initial decision to plant trees in that location or the policy decision to establish and fund the Tree Warden position. Imposing liability for negligent maintenance of an existing hazard does not usurp the policy-making powers of government.

The court aligned its decision with prior cases like Greenwood v. Easton (negligent installation/maintenance of parking lot barriers not discretionary) and Kelley v. Rossi (negligent medical treatment guided by standards of care, not discretionary policy). Like the doctor in Kelley, the Tree Warden’s maintenance function was governed by the standard of reasonable care owed to neighbors, not unfettered policy discretion.

This holding provides significant clarity for insurers: the § 10(b) discretionary function defense should not shield municipalities from liability for negligent failure to address known hazards during routine maintenance or operational activities. An employee’s need to exercise judgment does not automatically equate to protected policy discretion under the MTCA.

The Importance of Subrogation in the Insurance Ecosystem

The Citation case serves as a practical example of subrogation in action. Subrogation is the principle allowing an insurer, after paying a loss to its insured, to step into the shoes of that insured to pursue recovery from any third party legally responsible for causing the loss. This mechanism is fundamental to the property and casualty insurance system.

Successful subrogation recoveries directly benefit insurers by recouping claim payouts, which improves underwriting results and overall financial health. These recoveries also indirectly benefit policyholders; by mitigating the ultimate cost of claims, subrogation helps insurers maintain more stable and affordable premiums over the long term. Furthermore, successful subrogation may allow the insurer to recover the policyholder’s deductible and return it to them.

For independent insurance agencies, particularly those operating under profit-sharing or contingent commission agreements, successful subrogation by their carriers can be a pleasant surprise. Favorable loss ratios, bolstered by subrogation recoveries, are often a key factor in determining eligibility for and the amount of these commission payouts. When insurers seek to recover funds from negligent third parties like the City, as alleged in the Citation case, it contributes positively to the underwriting results that benefit agencies’ contingent compensation.

Beyond the financial aspects, subrogation serves as a principle of accountability. It works to shift the financial burden of a loss from the innocent insured and their insurer to the party whose negligence actually caused the damage. Allowing Citation’s suit to proceed reinforces the idea that public entities, when not protected by a specific immunity, can be held responsible for negligent acts or omissions just like private parties.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The Appeals Court’s decision in Citation Insurance Company v. City of Chicopee reinforces important principles under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. By affirming the denial of summary judgment, the court allowed Citation Insurance to proceed with its subrogation claim based on the City’s alleged negligent maintenance of a hazardous tree.

For Massachusetts insurance professionals handling claims involving potential municipal liability, the key lessons are:

• Presentment is Critical but Factual: While G.L. c. 258, § 4 demands strict compliance with the two-year written notice requirement to the correct official, the focus is on providing sufficient factual information for the municipality to investigate, not necessarily specific legal citations.
• Discretionary Function Immunity is Narrow: The G.L. c. 258, § 10(b) exception protects policy and planning decisions, not routine operational or maintenance activities, even if those involve judgment. A municipality cannot immunize itself simply by calling an operational task “discretionary” in an ordinance.
• Notice Matters: Evidence that the municipality had prior notice of a dangerous condition, such as the 2013 letter and inventory findings in this case, is, as in most tort cases, persuasive evidence in proving foreseeability and, therefore, negligence.