Dec. 17, 2013) That Section defines conversion as “an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another, to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.” Restatement 2d of Torts § 222A. “The elements of conversion require that a [party] be proved to have ‘intentionally or wrongfully exereise[d] acts of ownership, control or dominion over personal property to which he has no right of possession at the time....” In re Brauer, 452 Mass. 56, 890 N.E.2d 847, 857 (2008); see also Verdrager, 2013 WL 7760827, at *7 (“The basic premise .App.Ct. 407, 783 N.E.2d 849, 857 (2003)); accord Grande v. PFL Life Ins. Co., No. 9663, 2000 WL 1476676, at *4 (Mass.App.Ct. Sept. 27, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Courts have held that an identifiable “lot”
holding that husbands obligation to pay premiums on a life insurance policy for five years with wife as the beneficiary was periodic alimony holding in an action to recover premiums paid on a life insurance policy where plaintiff alleged she had been informed she was paying premiums toward a retirement annuity contract that where the record was devoid of any facts suggesting that defendant exercised any wrongful control over the monthly payments voluntarily made by plaintiff or took any action with respect to such payments other than providing her with the life insurance coverage which the documents establish that she purchased there was no basis for a claim of conversion holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired