ARTICLE
9 May 2025

Calculating Chapter 93A Damages: Takeaways From Diprio v. Ground Up Construction, Inc.

GT
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 2,850 attorneys across 49 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm’s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2024 BTI “Leading Edge Law Firm” for anticipating and meeting client needs, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100 and NLJ 500. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.
In Diprio v. Ground Up Constr., Inc., the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered the appropriateness of an award of attorneys' fees to pro...
United States Massachusetts Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Diprio v. Ground Up Constr., Inc., the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered the appropriateness of an award of attorneys' fees to pro se litigants—homeowners who sued a contractor for violating a Massachusetts Home Improvement Contractor Statute (HICS)—and the proper measure of damages under 93A, Section 9. At trial, a jury found that (i) the plaintiff homeowners breached their home improvement contract and (ii) the contractor breached the HICS—each causing damages for the same amount and effectively “canceling out” the payment of damages. However, the trial court concluded that the contractor's violation of the HICS violated Chapter 93A, Section 9 and awarded attorneys' fees to the pro se homeowners.

The trial court's attorney fee award focused on fees incurred before the pro se homeowners' counsel withdrew from the case. However, as the award was based on a factual issue that had some record support, the Appeals Court did not vacate the award and factual finding that the fees were incurred “in connection with said action” as Section 9(4) requires.

As to damages, the Appeals Court disagreed with the homeowners' assertion that the trial judge erred in ascertaining the base damages on which to calculate multiple damages under Section 9. According to the homeowners, the trial judge should have multiplied their damages using the total amount of the judgment entered and not using the single damages figure the jury determined. As the Appeals Court explained, however, the judgment amount included prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees, which are not elements of damages under Section 9(4). 

This case demonstrates that parties and counsel should consider each element of damages when seeking and defending against Chapter 93A claims to avoid improper multiplication of amounts that are not properly included in a multiple damages award. Specifically, when considering multiple damages, a court should calculate interest on the single damages award only (absent some claim that fees and costs should be damages), and then add the interest and fees to the single damages once they are multiplied. That way, interest and fees are not inappropriately inflated by a multiple damages finding.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More