Andre Sansoucy recently obtained a summary judgment in favor of an insurance company on a 93A case. The plaintiff alleged that he had sustained a closed head injury and had incurred substantial medical expenses as a result of an auto accident. The insurer denied that the accident was the proximate cause of his alleged injuries and medical treatment, and the insurer made an offer that was less than the alleged medical expenses. Although the jury in the underlying case agreed with the insurer and returned a verdict that was less than the insurer’s offer, the plaintiff still pursued his 93A claim, arguing that his expert medical testimony established that liability was reasonably clear. A Superior Court judge then ruled that, as a matter of law, the insurer had not violated Chapter 176D and was not liable under Chapter 93A in light of the jury verdict and an expert opinion that supported the insurer’s position.