Court: PURE Willfully Violated c. 176D, but Insureds’ 93A Claims Fail For Lack Of Damages Despite $16 Million In Claim Payments

---

PURE paid over $16 million under its homeowners policy, but the insureds proved no damages under Chapter 93A.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge found that Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (PURE) willfully violated two provisions of Massachusetts’ unfair claims-settlement law while adjusting a fire loss involving an unusual high-value Great Barrington home.

But after a seven-day bench trial, Associate Justice Kenneth W. Salinger entered judgment for PURE because homeowners Steven B. Deutsch and Joyce I. Greenberg failed to prove compensable damages caused by those violations.

The result capped a claim in which PURE ultimately paid approximately $16 million under dwelling, contents and additional living expense coverages. The litigation also produced two statutory reference proceedings and a finding that PURE’s dwelling settlement offers were “low-ball offers” that deliberately forced its insureds into litigation.

Judge Salinger’s findings and conclusions are dated September 21, 2026. The final judgment was subsequently entered on the Superior Court docket on September 23.

A 9,200-Square-Foot Great Camp and Guaranteed Replacement Cost Coverage

The size and construction of the insured property were central to the dispute.

Built in 1905 in the style of an Adirondack Great Camp, the approximately 9,200-square-foot house consisted of two wings forming a V extending more than 200 feet. Judge Salinger found that virtually all of the wood, other than the floors, was American Chestnut. The floors were clear rock maple and bird’s-eye maple.

The home had approximately 51 windows and 60 doors, a substantial stone foundation, and eight working fireplaces in three hand-crafted lake stone chimneys. Deutsch and Greenberg purchased the property in 1993 and made it their primary residence in 2020.

The PURE High Value Homeowners Policy provided reconstruction-cost coverage requiring PURE to pay the cost of repairing or replacing the dwelling at the same location with materials and workmanship of like kind and quality.

The stated dwelling limit was $5,679,540, with $2,271,817 in contents coverage. The annual premium for the policy was $7,152. If the insureds complied with the policy’s rebuilding requirements, however, the dwelling coverage was not limited to the stated amount and could extend to the full reconstruction cost. The parties later stipulated that Deutsch and Greenberg began reconstruction within the required two-year period.

Contents coverage carried a $2,271,817 limit, while additional living expense coverage did not have a fixed dollar limit but covered reasonable expenses.

The policy also contained a provision stating that PURE would submit disputes over the amount of loss to a three-member board of referees upon the insureds’ written request. That provision later became important because Massachusetts fire insurance law, G.L. c. 175, § 99, requires disputed fire-loss valuations to proceed through statutory reference.

Early Reconstruction Estimates Reached $12 Million to $16 Million

The fire occurred on December 29, 2020. One wing was essentially gutted, and the other sustained severe smoke damage.

PURE responded immediately, assigning Ryan Begley as the claim adjuster and arranging to have the property boarded up the following day.

On December 31, Robert Purcell of PURE, Jordan Stolle of Davitt Design Build, and the insureds’ broker, Ben Correia, inspected the property.

Judge Salinger found that Stolle described the home as “definitely a total loss.” Stolle estimated that rebuilding the stone foundation alone would probably cost between $2.5 million and $3 million and said the overall reconstruction cost was likely to fall between $12 million and $16 million.

Purcell told Deutsch that rebuilding would cost at least $12 million and possibly as much as $14 million. The Court inferred that Purcell shared those numbers only after discussing them with Stolle.

Deutsch suggested that he and Greenberg obtain their own reconstruction estimate because large claims could become adversarial. According to Judge Salinger’s findings, Purcell responded that PURE did not “do adversarial,” told the insureds “we’ve got your back,” said they had “a great insurance policy,” and told them to “let us take care of this.”

PURE’s First Formal Estimate Came in at $5.028 Million

A little more than a month later, however, the reconstruction number was dramatically different.

On February 8, 2021, PURE sent the insureds a “rebuild proposal” based on a Davitt estimate of approximately $5.028 million for reconstruction, plus amounts for landscaping, demolition, debris removal, and land stabilization.

Judge Salinger found that Davitt’s estimate “did not reflect the kind and quality of the materials and workmanship that had been used to construct the Property.”

Among other things, Davitt had not recognized that the home was built largely from American Chestnut. The estimate priced the home’s clear maple flooring as No. 1 oak, assumed a poured concrete foundation topped with stone rather than the existing hand-built stone construction, and used prefabricated fireplaces rather than the hand-crafted lake stone fireplaces and chimneys.

The estimate also included no cost for approximately 51 windows and 60 doors. Davitt had assumed that the house contained roughly 7,000 square feet when the actual dwelling was approximately 9,200 square feet—about 30% larger.

When Greenberg told Purcell that the estimate did not reflect the house, Purcell described it as only a “starting point.”

Settlement Discussions Followed

On February 11, PURE urged the insureds to consider a lump-sum global settlement and offered approximately $8.2 million. Judge Salinger described that figure as essentially the combined policy limits that would have applied if the insureds elected not to rebuild.

Deutsch and Greenberg said they could not decide whether to accept a settlement without knowing what rebuilding would actually cost.

On February 19, Greenberg proposed a $10.4 million global settlement, representing the policy limits plus approximately 30 months of additional living expenses. The insureds intended under that proposal to undertake reconstruction without PURE’s continued involvement.

PURE rejected the proposal and countered at approximately $8.645 million.

Deutsch and Greenberg then retained their own residential construction professionals.

Internal PURE Messages Become Part of the Court’s Findings

Judge Salinger’s decision also recounts internal PURE communications as the dispute developed.

The Court found that when PURE learned the insureds were developing their own reconstruction estimate, its representatives “became angry.”

In a text exchange, Begley told Purcell:

“We shot ourselves in the foot with Davitt[.]”

The Court found that Purcell did not disagree but did not arrange for a more realistic reconstruction estimate.

Instead, Judge Salinger found that Purcell wanted to pressure the insureds into making a counteroffer. Purcell wrote that the insureds “are pissing me off” and that the “‘love our members’ approach isn’t going to be there” in further communications.

By June 2021, the insureds were seeking approximately $17.66 million—$15 million for the dwelling, $1.7 million for contents and $960,000 in additional living expenses—supported by a detailed 135-page reconstruction report.

PURE subsequently produced what it described as its “final estimate with supporting documentation.” The revised Davitt reconstruction estimate was approximately $7.268 million.

By November 2021, the insureds had increased their total claim to approximately $19.784 million, including $16.432 million for the dwelling.

In January 2022, PURE made a payment of approximately $5.7 million tied to the dwelling coverage limit while expressly reserving its rights.

Court Finds Two Willful Chapter 176D Violations

After trial, Judge Salinger found that PURE willfully violated two provisions of G.L. c. 176D, § 3(9).

Under § 3(9)(f), the Court found that PURE failed to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement after liability became reasonably clear.

Judge Salinger wrote that PURE “never made a fair and equitable settlement offer on the dwelling coverage claim.” PURE had conceded that it owed the reconstruction cost necessary to rebuild using like-kind-and-quality materials, yet its $5.028 million estimate did not properly reflect the unusual construction of the house.

The Court also found that PURE’s later $7.268 million estimate did not constitute a fair settlement offer.

Under § 3(9)(g), the Court found that PURE compelled Deutsch and Greenberg to initiate litigation and participate in statutory reference by offering substantially less than the amounts they ultimately recovered.

PURE’s final dwelling estimate was only about 63% of the approximately $11.5 million reconstruction cost subsequently established by the first reference panel.

Judge Salinger concluded that those violations also established liability under G.L. c. 93A, § 9.

But the Court rejected the insureds’ other Chapter 176D theories.

It found no actionable policy misrepresentation under § 3(9)(a); no failure to acknowledge or act reasonably promptly on communications under § 3(9)(b); and no violation of § 3(9)(d) because PURE had not refused to pay the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.

The Court also found that the insureds had waived their § 3(9)(h) theory and had not established a violation of § 3(9)(n). Although PURE’s settlement offers were “much too low,” the Court found that PURE had provided reasonable explanations for them.

Statutory Reference Fixes the Dwelling Loss at $11.5 Million

In August 2022, Superior Court Judge Michael Ricciuti ordered the parties to proceed through statutory reference to determine the amount of the dwelling loss.

The three-member reference panel ultimately fixed the dwelling reconstruction cost at $11,502,332.84.

The amount was more than twice PURE’s original $5.028 million reconstruction estimate and substantially above its later $7.268 million estimate.

A second statutory reference followed concerning contents coverage and additional living expenses. That panel awarded additional sums for personal property and ALE that had not already been paid.

The first reference also became important to the Chapter 176D analysis because the approximately $11.5 million result provided the comparison against which Judge Salinger measured PURE’s earlier dwelling offers.

PURE Ultimately Paid Approximately $16 Million

By trial, Judge Salinger found that PURE had paid approximately:

• $11.783 million under the dwelling coverage;
• $2.272 million under the contents coverage; and
• $1.945 million in additional living expenses.

The total was approximately $16 million.

Deutsch and Greenberg had lived initially at the Marriott and later rented furnished properties in and around Great Barrington. Their housing expenses reached approximately $31,000 per month, first paid directly by PURE and later reimbursed after the insureds paid the expenses themselves.

Why the Insureds Recovered Nothing Despite the Chapter 176D Violations

The most unusual part of Judge Salinger’s decision was not the finding that PURE violated Chapter 176D. It was what happened next.

Although the Court found two willful statutory violations, Deutsch and Greenberg ultimately recovered nothing in the lawsuit.

Judge Salinger’s decision identified several reasons.

First, the approximately $11.5 million reference award could not simply be converted into a court judgment and then doubled or trebled under Chapter 93A.

The Court relied on Bonfiglio v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. for the proposition that an unconfirmed insurance arbitration award is not itself a judgment subject to multiple damages. A Massachusetts statutory reference decision under G.L. c. 175, § 99 is a form of arbitration.

The Court also relied on Murphy v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., explaining that an insured cannot create a judgment capable of multiplication merely by refusing full payment of a proper arbitration award.

PURE had paid the two reference awards in full.

There was, however, an additional procedural wrinkle.

PURE had continued to press counterclaims seeking to recover substantial portions of the amounts it had paid. Judge Salinger initially ruled that, while those recoupment claims remained alive, an actual controversy existed concerning how much PURE ultimately owed under the policy.

During trial, PURE moved to dismiss those counterclaims with prejudice. The Court allowed the motion over the insureds’ objection.

Once the counterclaims disappeared, Judge Salinger concluded that there was no longer an actual controversy over the amounts PURE owed under the policy and therefore no basis for converting the reference awards into judgments for purposes of Chapter 93A.

Judge Salinger expressly acknowledged the unusual result.

“It may seem unfair,” he wrote, for an insurer to commit willful Chapter 176D violations, eventually pay the reference awards and then eliminate potential Chapter 93A consequences by abandoning its recoupment claims.

But, he concluded, “that result is dictated by the SJC’s holdings in Bonfiglio and Murphy.”

No Proof of Delay, Litigation-Cost or Emotional-Distress Damages

The insureds alternatively sought approximately $7.27 million in delay damages, representing the difference between the $11.5 million reconstruction figure determined through reference and a later estimate of approximately $18.77 million.

Judge Salinger rejected that theory.

The later estimate largely tracked the earlier reconstruction estimate presented during reference, except that the more recent version used American Chestnut. The Court found that the insureds could not use a delay-damages claim to relitigate the binding valuation determined by the reference panel.

More importantly, Judge Salinger found that the insureds had not proved that labor or material costs had materially increased because of PURE’s unfair settlement practices. He declined to take judicial notice that residential construction costs had necessarily increased since 2020.

The insureds also failed to prove litigation expenses caused by PURE’s violation of § 3(9)(g).

Judge Salinger recognized that litigation costs incurred because an insurer unlawfully forces an insured to sue can potentially constitute actual damages. But Deutsch and Greenberg introduced no evidence quantifying attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses attributable to PURE’s misconduct.

Finally, the Court found that both insureds had suffered substantial stress and anguish from losing their historic home, inventorying their property and working through reconstruction.

But they did not prove additional compensable emotional distress caused by PURE’s unfair settlement practices.

Because damages are an element of an individual Chapter 93A claim, judgment ultimately had to enter for PURE.

Judge Criticizes Both Sides’ “Obsessively Detailed” Trial Filings

Judge Salinger also criticized both parties for the scale of their post-trial submissions.

PURE asked the Court to adopt 807 separately numbered findings in a 144-page filing. Deutsch and Greenberg requested 524 findings in a submission that, with its addendum, totaled 121 pages.

The parties introduced 591 exhibits.

Judge Salinger described the requested findings as “so long, obsessively detailed, and lacking in focus and clarity that they are worse than unhelpful,” noting that many concerned matters irrelevant to the issues he had to decide.

Agency Checklists previously reported on an earlier stage of the litigation in 2022, when the Superior Court addressed PURE’s policy reference provision and ordered the valuation dispute into Massachusetts’ statutory reference process.

Read Agency Checklists’ 2022 report on the earlier PURE ruling.

Final Judgment for PURE: Plaintiffs Have 30 Days to File an Appeal

The result was therefore unusual but straightforward: PURE willfully violated two provisions of Massachusetts’ unfair claims-settlement statute, yet the insureds recovered no actual or multiple damages because they failed to prove compensable injury caused by those violations.

Judge Salinger’s findings and conclusions are dated September 21, 2026. The judgment form also bears a September 21 date, but the clerk’s stamp reflects that the Court entered final judgment on the docket on September 23, 2026, with notice sent to the parties that day.

The judgment provides that Deutsch and Greenberg “shall take nothing on their claims and all Defendant’s (PURE) counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice.”

Under the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, the plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of final judgment to file a notice of appeal. Based on the September 23 docket entry, that period expires October 23, 2026, absent a postjudgment motion or other event affecting the appellate timetable.