WPCDY ZpXi; u/3?lp6={Ih֙9 *BR|8+{O0'Pq\%rÝ:au'AVmYQw𢣫c|Jn)K'M%߀ͽyt7iI"+𦾤1qNvMl 5f?T7xa[nP f]rM-TTjW`Y +hAn/A~4o'vJ~# % 0D 0G U:6 0p U8U nT N UN ^ 1w=4AUd mfE}faN 1 72 1uP 72 0c^ZUBb B+ !kw#P$ B 2' O'Y*:,%V-{04E6C7:<>|D|D|D|D|DSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 0cVV D5OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW ASWW 0cX 0DYHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($X:XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !X_XXX    =_XXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regularj2s L=1r?,}backup3|xUTABLE A(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    3    _Itisnotclearwhetherthisfinalletterstatedthatthe  policyhadalreadylapsedorthatthepolicywouldlapseifRalph  failedtopaythepremiumbyaspecifieddate.Forpurposesof \ thisappeal,weassumeitsaidthatthepolicyhadalreadylapsed.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    6    _"Unfairclaimsettlementpractices"constituteunfairmethods  ofcompetitionandunfairordeceptiveactsorpracticesinthe  businessofinsuranceunderMass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,2.Mass. \ Gen.Lawsch.176D,3(9).  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    7    _Section110Bprovides:  0  Nopolicyofinsurance...,exceptapolicywhichby  itstermsiscancellablebythecompanyorisrenewable \ orcontinuablewithitsconsent,orexceptapolicythe 2 premiumsforwhicharepayablemonthlyoratshorter X intervals,shallterminateorlapsefornonpaymentofany . premiumuntiltheexpirationofthreemonthsfromthedue   dateofsuchpremium,unlessthecompanywithinnotless   thantennormorethanfortyfivedayspriortosaiddue `  date,shallhavemailed...anoticeshowingtheamount 6   ofsuchpremiumanditsduedate.1 C ׀Suchnoticeshallalso  \  containastatementastothelapseofthepolicyifno  2  paymentismadeasprovidedinthepolicy.Ifsucha   noticeisnotsosent,thepremiumindefaultmaybepaid   atanytimewithinsaidperiodofthreemonths....No d  actionshallbemaintainedonanypolicytowhichthis :  sectionappliesandwhichhaslapsedfornonpaymentof `  anypremiumunlesssuchactioniscommencedwithintwo 6 yearsfromtheduedateofsuchpremium.    Mass.Gen.Lawsch.175,110B. 8 $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    9    _Becausethedistrictcourtfoundthat"thepolicyterminated  bylaw[duetothefactthattheDecember2000premiumremained  unpaidthreemonthsafteritwasdue]withoutanyrequirementof \ noticeto[Ralph],"andbecauseallofRalph'sclaimsagainst 2 Guardianwerebasedonitsrefusaltoaccedetohisdemandthatthe X policybereinstatedanditsfailuretosendpremiumnoticestohis . correctaddress,thedistrictcourtdecidedthatGuardianwas   entitledtosummaryjudgment.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    1    _Theactionwasoriginallyfiledinstatecourt,butitwas  removedtotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof  Mainepursuanttothatcourt'sdiversityjurisdiction. ! $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    14    _ThereisnodisputethatMassachusettslawgovernsthis  action.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    12    _Thedistrictcourtdeterminedthattransferwouldnotbein  theinterestofjusticesolelybecauseitwasgrantingGuardian's  motionforsummaryjudgement. a $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    10    _Gaffneyalsomovedfordismissalbasedonimpropervenueand  Ralph'sfailuretostateaclaimonwhichreliefcouldbegranted. F $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    8    _Inmovingforsummaryjudgment,Guardianalsoarguedthatall  ofRalph'sclaimsweretimebarredpursuanttothelastsentenceof  Mass.Gen.Lawsch.175,110B.Seesupranote7.Thedistrict \ courtdidnotaddressthisargumentand,withoutpassingonits 2 merits,neitherdowe. d  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    15    _Althoughthepolicystatedthattherewouldbeagraceperiod  followingamissedpremiumpaymentofonlythirtyonedays,wehave  notbeenpresentedwithsufficientevidencethatGuardiancomplied \ withsection110B'spremiumnoticerequirement.Therefore,we 2 cannotsaythatGuardianwasentitledtoterminatethepolicyat X theendofthethirtyonedaygraceperiod(thatis,priortothe . expirationofsection110B'sthreemonthperiod).  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    4    _Thestatutestatesthat"[u]nfairmethodsofcompetitionand  unfairordeceptiveactsorpracticesintheconductofanytrade  orcommerceare...unlawful."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,2(a). 0 $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    5    _ItisnotclearfromtherecordwhetherRalphsentasimilar  lettertoGaffney.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    11    _Ralphalsorespondedbyarguingthatthecourtcouldexercise  jurisdictionoverGaffney.Section1631ofTitle28provides:   X0  Wheneveracivilactionisfiledinacourt...and \ thatcourtfindsthatthereisawantofjurisdiction, 2 thecourtshall,ifitisintheinterestofjustice, X transfersuchaction...toanyothersuchcourtin . whichtheaction...couldhavebeenbroughtatthe   timeitwasfiled....  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    16    _AlthoughGuardiansentRalphnoticethatthepolicyhad  lapsedonMarch6,2001,priortothedateonwhichthepolicy  couldhavebeenterminatedaccordingtosection110B,thatdoesnot \ alterourconclusionthatthepolicyterminatedfornonpayment 2 beforeRalphtenderedpaymentforthemissedpremium.Tobesure, X hadRalphtenderedpaymenton,forexample,March21,2001(after . thedateofthelapsenoticebutbeforetheexpirationofsection   110B'sthreemonthperiod),wewouldbedealingwithadifferent   case.But,hedidnottenderpaymentuntilNovember2001and, `  thus,cannottakeadvantageofGuardian'sprematurelapsenotice.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    2    _In2001,Guardianmergedwith,andbecamethesuccessorin  interestto,BerkshireLifeInsuranceCompany,whichactually  issuedthepolicyinquestion.Foreaseofreference,wereferto \ therelevantinsurancecompanyasGuardianthroughout. ; $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    17    _GuardianhadinfactsentRalphnoticesofhispremium  paymentdeadlinesforsevenyears. 9 $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    18    _GuardianmaintainsthatbecauseRalphdidnotrespondinthe  districtcourttoitsargumentthatthepolicyterminateddueto  hisfailuretopaypremiums,hehasforfeitedhisrighttoadvance \ hisestoppelargumentonappeal.WedeclineGuardian'sinvitation 2 toruleonthatground.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    19    _AccordingtoMass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,9(3),"[_a]t_Ԁleast  thirtydayspriortothefilingof[achapter93A]action,a  writtendemandforrelief,identifyingtheclaimantandreasonably \ describingtheunfairordeceptiveactorpracticerelieduponand 2 theinjurysuffered,shallbemailedordeliveredtoany X prospectiverespondent."  .$XXXX  =Xdd=    16    _Section110Bclearlyapplieshere,asthepolicyinquestion  was"Non_Cancelable_ԀandGuaranteedRenewable,"andthepremiums  weredueonceeverythreemonths.SeeMass.Gen.Lawsch.175, \ 110B.  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    20    __Gaffney_Ԁarguesthattransferoftheclaimsagainsthimwould  beimproperunder28U.S.C.1631becausethatstatute"directsa  courttotransferan'action'overwhichitlacksjurisdiction, \ ratherthananindividualclaim."Hill,795F.2dat1070.We 2 declinetheinvitationtoaffirmthedistrictcourtonthisground. X BecausethedistrictcourtgrantedGuardian'smotionforsummary . judgment,theclaimsassertedagainst_Gaffney_Ԁweretheonlyclaims   thatremainedintheaction.Thus,evenifthetransferstatute   prohibitsthetransferofsomebutnotallclaimsinanaction(and `  wequestionwhetheritdoes),itwouldnotprohibittransferunder 6   thecircumstancesofthiscase.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Countyof  \  Cook,170F.3d1084,1089(Fed.Cir.1999)(findingthatCongress  2  "_inten[ded_]...1631topermitthetransferoflessthanallof   theclaimsinanaction").  $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    21    _Wenotethatthereisadebateoverwhether28U.S.C.1631  providesfortransfersonlywhereafederalcourtlackssubject  matterjurisdiction,orwhetheritalsoapplieswhereothertypes \ ofjurisdictionarelacking,includingpersonaljurisdiction. 2 CompareRomanv.Ashcroft,340F.3d314,328(6thCir.2003) X (concludingthat"1631...appliestofederalcourts . identifyinganyjurisdictionaldefect,regardlessofwhetherit   involvespersonalorsubjectmatterjurisdiction."),andRennerv.   LanardToysLtd.,33F.3d277,284(3dCir.1994)(indicatingthat `  wherepersonaljurisdictionislacking,acourtmayconsidera 6   transferpursuantto1631),andRossv.Colo.OutwardBoundSch.,  \  Inc.,822F.2d1524,152627(10thCir.1987)(same),with  2  Songbyrd,Inc.v.EstateofGrossman,206F.3d172,179n.9(2d   Cir.2000)(notingthat"thelegislativehistoryofsection1631   providessomereasontobelievethatthissectionauthorizes d  transfersonlytocurelackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction"),and :  Pedzewickv.Foe,963F.Supp.48,50(D.Mass.1997)("agree[ing] `  withthelineofcaseslimitingsection1631totransferforlack 6 ofsubjectmatterjurisdictiononly"),and15CharlesAlanWright   etal.,FederalPracticeandProcedure3842(2ded.1986)  ("[Section1631]isconcernedonlywithsubjectmatter h jurisdiction.Ithasnothingtodowithpersonaljurisdictionor > venue.").Thosethatconstrue1631narrowlydosoinrelianceon d thestatute'slegislativehistory,see,e.g.,Pedzewick,963F. : Supp.at50(notingthataSenatereportissuedwhenCongress  enacted1631,S.Rep.No.97275,at11(1987),reprintedin1982  U.S.C.C.A.N.11,21,40,statesinpartthatthestatute"would l authorizethecourtinwhichacaseisimproperlyfiledtotransfer B ittoacourtwheresubjectmatterjurisdictionisproper"),while h thosethatreadthestatuteexpansivelygenerallyrelyonits > languageandCongress'intentinpassingit,see,e.g.,Roman,340  F.3dat328(observingthat"[t]helanguageof1631doesnot  refertoanyspecifictypeofjurisdiction,onlyreferringbroadly p  tojurisdiction"andthat"abroadconstructionofthestatuteis F ! consistentwithCongress'sintenttoprotectaplaintiffagainst !l" eitheradditionalexpenseortheexpirationofarelevantstatute !B# oflimitationsintheeventthattheplaintiffmakesanerrorin "$ tryingtoselectthepropercourtwithinthecomplexfederalcourt #% system"(internalquotationmarksomitted)).Althoughweare t$& inclinedtoread1631asallowingfortransferswhereafederal J% ' courtlacksanytypeofjurisdiction(includingpersonal  &p!( jurisdiction),weneednotdefinitelydecidetheissuetoday,as &F") Gaffneydidnotdefendthedistrictcourt'sdenialofRalph's '#*  motiontotransferbyarguingthat1631doesnotpermittransfer  tocuredefectsinpersonaljurisdiction.SeeSmilowv.  SouthwesternBellMobileSys.,Inc.,323F.3d32,43(1stCir. \ 2003)("Issuesraisedonappealinaperfunctorymanner(ornotat 2 all)arewaived."). I $XZ\XXX  =Z\XXdd=    13    _Ralphdoesnotchallengethedistrictcourt'srulingthatit  lackedpersonaljurisdictionoverGaffney. (;3$ !X_XXX  '''')!dxdx{|n}pE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$ !X_XXX  ($$   1  !XZ\XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X!XXXZ\ .X X!     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals K[ .  FortheFirstCircuit N K[XZ\XN  A') ` dE< ` A   No.041631 K  @<< RALPHJ._CIMON_,III,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @tt)v. O  @<< CHRISTOPHER_GAFFNEY_; K    GUARDIANLIFEINSURANCECOMPANYOFAMERICA, ! @Defendants,Appellees. } A') ` dE<(` A )y   APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^ FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE     @*@ [Hon.D.BrockHornby,U.S.DistrictJudge] < A') ` dE<` A 8 @'Before    @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, y! Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge, O " andHoward,CircuitJudge. %!u# A') ` dE<#` A #&       C.DonaldBriggs,III,withwhomBriggs&Counselwasonbrief $( forappellant. b% )   RussellB.Pierce,Jr.,withwhomNorman,Hanson&_Detroy_,LLC 8&!* wasonbriefforappellee,Christopher_Gaffney_. '^"+   GeraldineG.Sanchez,withwhomGavinG.McCarthyandPierce '4#, Atwood_LLP_wereonbriefforappellee,GuardianLifeInsurance ( $- CompanyofAmerica. )$. *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  <+&0<+&  SI+&1 @38420@S March10,2005 v,'3  RHCL-(4" @38420 @ R ," +&5 ? ,* !  8Z\XXdd8*,X` XX* ` STAHL,SeniorCircuitJudge .In2003,Ralph_Cimon_  ("Ralph"),whohadpurchasedadisabilityinsurancepolicyfrom x GuardianLifeInsuranceCompanyofAmerica("Guardian"),sued $t GuardianandChristopher_Gaffney_Ԁ("_Gaffney_"),theGuardianagent   whohadsoldhimthepolicy,afterGuardianterminatedhispolicy |  duetohisfailuretomakeatimelypremiumpayment.Thesuitwas ( x  broughtinMaine." #  1      ׀Guardianfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment $  and_Gaffney_Ԁfiledamotiontodismiss.Inresponsetothemotion   todismiss,Ralphfiledamotiontotransferhisclaimsagainst ,|  _Gaffney_ԀtotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof ( Massachusetts.Thedistrictcourtgrantedboththemotionfor  summaryjudgmentandthemotiontodismiss,anditdeniedthe 0 motiontotransfer.Ralphnowseeksreviewofthegrantofsummary , judgmentandthedenialofhisrequesttotransfer.Weaffirmthe  grantofthemotionforsummaryjudgmentandvacatethedenialof 4 themotiontotransfer. 0    I.Background     ` WereviewthefactsinthelightmostfavorabletoRalph. T!" See,e.g.,_McAdams_v.Mass.Mut.LifeIns.Co.,391F.3d287,290 #P$ (1stCir.2004)(recountingthefacts"inthelightmostfavorable $&  tothepartyopposingsummaryjudgment"). X&!( _ ` In1993,Guardianissuedadisabilityinsurancepolicyto   Ralph.- #  2      ׀Thepolicywas"NonCancellableandGuaranteedRenewable \ toAge65"andwas"issuedinconsiderationof...thepaymentof X premiums,"whichweretobepaidonaquarterlybasis.Thepolicy   listed"onlyoneconditionfor[its]renewal...:thepremiums `  [hadto]bepaidas[thepolicy]required."And,thepolicy  \  providedthat"[t]hepaymentofanypremiumwillnotcontinuethis   policyinforcebeyondthedatewhenthenextpremiumisdue, d  exceptfor[athirtyoneday]graceperiod...." `   ` From1993to2000,Ralphtimelypaidhispremiums.   However,hefailedtopayhisquarterlypremiumthatwasduein h December2000andfailedtomakesubsequentpaymentsdueinMarch d 2001,June2001,andSeptember2001.   ` Lateinthesummerof2000,Ralphandhiswife,Jean l Cimon("Jean"),movedfromMassachusettstoMaine.Priorto h moving,JeanmailedachangeofaddresscardtoGuardian.Atthe  timeofthemove,JeanalsocalledGaffneytoinformhimofthe p  move.Duringthecall,JeangaveGaffneytheirnewMaineaddress !l" andtelephonenumber,andsheattemptedtoscheduleanappointment "$ forRalphsothatheandGaffneycoulddiscusshisinsurance t$& coverage.Gaffney,however,toldJeanthathewasbusyandwould  &p!( callherbackatamoreconvenienttime.GaffneynevercalledJean  back,andJeandidnotmakeanyfurtherattempttocontactGaffney. \  ` OnNovember29,2000,GuardiansentRalphaletter X statingthathehadapremiumpaymentdueonDecember28,2000.   ThepremiumduedatecameandwentwithoutGuardianreceivinga `  payment.OnJanuary28,2001,GuardiansentRalphasecondletter  \  inwhichitofferedtoacceptalatepayment.Then,onMarch6,   2001,havingstillnotreceivedtheDecember28,2000payment, d  GuardiansentRalphathirdletterinforminghimthathispolicy `  hadlapsed. #  3      ׀Ralphdidnotreceiveanyoftheletters,whichwere   apparentlysenttoanincorrectaddressinMaine. h  ` From1993to2000,Ralphhadreceivedlettersona d quarterlybasisalertinghimofhispremiumpaymentduedates.By  2000,Ralphhadbecomeaccustomedto,andreliedon,receivingsuch l letters.Infact,Ralphpaidhispremiumsonlyafterreceiving h noticethatpaymentsweredue.Thus,becauseRalphneverreceived  aletterremindinghimtopayhisDecember28,2000premium,he p  neverpaidthatpremium(orthethreepremiumsduethereafter). !l"  ` InOctoberof2001,Ralphbecamedisabled.OnNovember "$ 16,2001,JeancalledGuardianandlearnedthatthepolicyhadbeen t$& cancelled.OnNovember27,2001,RalphsentalettertoGuardian  &p!( requestingthatthepolicybereinstatedandgivingnoticethathe  intendedtofileaclaimpursuanttoMass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,2) #  4       \ ifGuardianrefusedhisrequest.* #  5      ׀RalphalsosentGuardianacheck X fortheunpaidpremiums.Guardianrefusedtoreinstatethepolicy.    ` Asaresult,inOctober2003,RalphsuedGuardianand `  GaffneyinMaine,claimingthathewasentitledtodamagesbecause  \  thetwo"breachednumerousdutiesofcare"theyowedtohimunder   thepolicyinconnectionwiththeirfailuretoensurethatpremium d  noticesweresenttohiscorrectaddress.Inaddition,Ralph `  allegedthathewasentitledtorecoverunderMass.Gen.Lawsch.   93A,2forGuardianandGaffney'srefusaltosettlehisclaimand h reinstatethepolicy. #  6      ׀Ralphalsoassertedthatthetwobreached d thepolicy,andshouldbeestoppedfromterminatingthepolicy,due  totheirfailuretosendpremiumnoticestohiscorrectaddress. l  ` Inresponse,Guardianfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment h  andGaffneyfiledamotiontodismiss.Guardian,citingMass.Gen.  Lawsch.175,110B,  #  7      ׀insistedthatitwasentitledtosummary   judgmentbecausethepolicyhadlapsedasamatteroflaw.&H #  8      ׀The \ districtcourtagreedandallowedGuardian'smotion.!> #  9      ׀Gaffney X movedfordismissalbasedonlackofpersonaljurisdiction.% #  10      ׀Ralph   respondedbyfilingamotiontotransfertheactionagainstGaffney  toMassachusettspursuantto28U.S.C.1631.+ #  11      ׀Ingranting \ Gaffney'smotiontodismiss,thedistrictcourtruledthatit X lackedpersonaljurisdictionandthattransferwouldnotbeinthe   interestofjustice.$@ #  12      ׀Ralphseeksreviewofthedistrictcourt's `  grantofGuardian'smotionforsummaryjudgmentandrefusalto  \  transfertheactionagainstGaffney.8  #  13            II.Discussion  d  90 ` Wefirstconsiderwhetherthedistrictcourterredin ,|  grantingGuardian'smotionforsummaryjudgmentandthendecide ( whetheriterredindenyingRalph'smotiontotransfer.   (83"3"  312  A  .3  0 `   TheGrantofGuardian'sMotionforSummaryJudgment31 2݌0` (#` (# Ќ   ` Wereviewthegrantofamotionforsummaryjudgmentde , novo.GTEWireless,Inc.v.CellexisInt'l,Inc.,341F.3d1,4  (1stCir.2003).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthe 4 recordreveals"thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterial 0 factandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasa  matteroflaw."Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c).Wemayaffirmagrantof \ summaryjudgmentonanygroundsupportedbytherecord.SeeGeffon X v.MicrionCorp.,249F.3d29,35(1stCir.2001).    ` ThedistrictcourtgrantedGuardian'smotionforsummary `  judgmentbasedonitsfindingthat,underMass.Gen.Lawsch.175,  \  110B,# #  14      ׀Ralph'spolicyautomaticallyterminatedwhenhefailedto   paytheDecember2000premiumwithinthreemonthsofitsduedate. d  Wethinkthatthedistrictcourtwaswrongtointerpretsection `  110Basprovidingforautomaticterminationofapolicyafterthree   monthsfornonpaymentofapremium.Wereadthestatuteas h providingadegreeofprotectionfortheinsuredbyputtinglimits d onaninsurancecompany'scontractualabilitytocancelapolicy  basedonnonpaymentofapremium;wedonotreaditasproviding l forterminationasamatteroflaw.Still,thestatutedoesnot h prohibitaninsurancecompanyfromterminatingapolicyin  accordancewiththepolicy'stermsfornonpaymentofapremium. p  Rather,itsimplyprovidesthatapolicycannotbeterminatedfor !l" nonpaymentofapremiumuntilthreemonthsafterthedateonwhich "$ thepremiumwasdue(unlessnoticewassentinaccordancewiththe t$&  statute).Seesupranote7.  &p!(  ` Here,thepolicystatedthatitwouldterminateduetoa   missedpremiumpayment:"Thepaymentofanypremiumwillnot \ continuethispolicyinforcebeyondthedatewhenthenextpremium X isdue...."( #  15      ׀And,startingwiththeDecember28,2000payment,   Ralphmissedfourconsecutivepremiumpaymentsanddidnotattempt `  totenderalatepaymentuntilNovemberof2001.Thus,regardless  \  ofwhetherGuardiansentnoticeoftheDecember28,2000payment   deadline,thepolicyterminatedpursuanttoitstermsonMarch28, d  2001threemonthsaftertheduedateofthefirstmissedpremium `  andwellbeforeRalphattemptedtotenderalatepaymentin   Novemberofthatyear.,j #  16       h  ` RalpharguesthatGuardianshouldbeestoppedfrom d terminatingthepolicypursuanttohisnonpaymentoftheDecember  28,2000premiumbecausehereliedonGuardiantosendnoticesof l premiumpaymentdeadlinesbeforemakingsuchpayments. #  17      ׀andGuardian  failedtosendpropernoticeoftheDecember28,2000deadline./< #  18      ׀ \ ToestablishthatGuardianshouldbeestoppedfromterminatingthe X policyduetothemissedpremium,Ralphmustconvinceusthat,   amongotherthings,thereisanequitabledefenseavailabletoan `  insuredwhoviolatesacontractualobligationandheacted  \  reasonablyinrelyingonGuardiantoremindhimoftheDecember28,   2000paymentdeadlinebeforemakingthatpayment.SeeTurnpike d  Motors,Inc.v.NewburyGroup,Inc.,596N.E.2d989,993(Mass. `  1992)("Itis...necessary...thattherelianceoftheparty   seekingthebenefitofestoppelmusthavebeenreasonable."). h  ` Wethinkthateveniftherewereanequitabledefense d available,Ralphwouldnotbeentitledtoinvokeitbecausehis  relianceonGuardiantoremindhimoftheDecember28,2000payment l deadlinewasunreasonable.Ralphmissedfourconsecutivequarterly h payments(and,insodoing,failedtotenderapremiumpaymentfor  morethanayear)duetohisclaimedrelianceonGuardian.Ralph's p   reliancewaspatentlyunreasonable,andtherefore,hewouldnotbe !l" entitledtobenefitfromanequitableremedyevenifonewere  available. \   ` Becausethepolicyterminatedaccordingtoitstermson X March28,2001duetoamissedpremiumpayment(regardlessof   whetherGuardiansentsuitablenoticeofthepaymentdeadline), `  Ralph'sclaims,otherthanhisestoppelclaim,fail.And,because  \  Ralphcannotshowthathisfailuretopaythemissedpremiumwas   reasonable,hisestoppelclaimlikewisefails.Thegrantof d  Guardian'smotionforsummaryjudgmentisaffirmed. `  "3"  3J2  B  .3  0 `   TheRefusaltoTransfertheActionAgainstGaffney3JJ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   ` Wenowaddresswhetherthedistrictcourterredin h denyingRalph'smotiontotransfertheactionagainstGaffneyfrom d MainetoMassachusettspursuantto28U.S.C.1631.Wereviewa  refusaltotransferforabuseofdiscretion.SeeHillv.U.S.Air l Force,795F.2d1067,1070(D.C.Cir.1986). h  ` Section1631directsadistrictcourttotransferacase  inwhichthereis"awantofjurisdiction,...if[transfer]is p  intheinterestofjustice."Here,thedistrictcourtdetermined !l" thattransferwouldnotbeintheinterestofjusticebecauseit "$ wasgrantingGuardian'smotionforsummaryjudgement.Thedistrict t$& court'sdeterminationwouldhavebeenreasonableifRalph'sclaims  &p!( againstGaffneywereentirelyderivativeofhisclaimsagainst '#* Guardian.But,wedonotunderstandthattobethecase;rather, x)$, weunderstandRalph'sclaimsagainstGaffneytorestonindependent $+t&. obligationsthatGaffneyowedtoRalph.Forexample,Ralph'sclaim  thatGaffney"breachednumerousdutiesofcare"ispremisedinpart \ onGaffney'sdutytoinformGuardianofRalph'snewMaineaddress. X Accordingly,wefindthatthedistrictcourterredindenyingthe   motiontotransferonthegroundgiven. `   ` Nevertheless,itmaybethatthereareothergroundson  \  whichtodenytransfer,asurgedonusbyGaffney.SeeBritellv.   UnitedStates,318F.3d70,75(1stCir.2003)("[I]fanaction. d  ..isfancifulorfrivolous,itisintheinterestofjusticeto `  dismissitratherthantokeepitonlifesupport(withthe   inevitableresultthatthetransfereecourtwillpulltheplug)."). h TherelevantclaimswerebasedonaconversationthatJeanhadwith d Gaffneylateinthesummerof2000,morethanthreeyearsbefore  Ralphfiledsuitinthefallof2003.Consequently,itappears l thatthecommonlawclaimsagainstGaffneyaretimebarred.See h Mass.Gen.Lawsch.260,2A("Exceptasotherwiseprovided,  actionsoftort,actionsofcontracttorecoverforpersonal p  injuries,andactionsofreplevin,shallbecommencedonlywithin !l" threeyearsnextafterthecauseofactionaccrues."). "$  ` Althoughtheremainingclaim,basedonMass.Gen.Laws t$& ch.93A,isnottimebarred,seeMass.Gen.Lawsch.260,5A  &p!( ("Actionsarisingonaccountofviolationsofanylawintendedfor '#* theprotectionofconsumers,including...chapterninetythree x)$, A[,]...shallbecommencedonlywithinfouryearsnextafterthe $+t&. causeofactionaccrues."),itnonethelessisbarredifRalph  failedtoprovideGaffneywiththepresuitnoticerequiredby \ Mass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,9(3).0 #  19      ׀See,e.g.,Entrialgov.Twin X CityDodge,Inc.,333N.E.2d202,204(Mass.1975)("Ademand   letterlistingthespecificdeceptivepracticesclaimedisa `  prerequisitetosuitandasaspecialelementmustbeallegedand  \  proved.").AlthoughRalphsentaletterthatgavenoticeofhis   Mass.Gen.Lawsch.93AclaimtoGuardian,itisnotclearthathe d  alsosentacopyofthatlettertoGaffney. `   ` Inlightoftheabove,wevacatethedenialofGaffney's    motiontotransfer2 #  20      ׀andremandtheactionagainstGaffneyforthe h districtcourttoreconsiderwhethertransferisintheinterestof  justice.3 #  21       \  ThegrantofGuardian'smotionforsummaryjudgmentisaffirmed;  thedenialofGaffney'smotiontotransferisvacatedandthe x actionagainstGaffneyisremandedforproceedingsconsistentwith @ thisopinion.   X