A consumer oriented statute that prohibits insurers from engaging in certain specific claim practices. the Supreme Judicial Court states that it, “…. was designed to remedy a host of possible violations in the insurance industry…” Violations of this statute are subject to G.L. c. 93A and its provisions relating to multiple damages and attorney fees.
Related Articles:
- The Agent & Unfulfilled Promises: Why You Need To Follow Up on An Insured’s Application If You Promised To Do SoMarch 23, 2014 - The last article in a four part series looking at the special circumstances involving the potential errors and omissions liability of an agent to his or her Insured.
- Referees Award Of $89,000 Thousand Bars Insured Litigating $1,200,000 Claimed LossInsureds' attempt to re-litigate in federal court their $1.2 million loss claim after referees award comes to naught.
- An Insurer’s $17k Ice Dam Damage Offer And 137k Referees’ Award For Sherborn Couple Not An Unfair Claim Practice Court FindsPaul and Linda DeRensis filed suit over the handling of their ice dam claim for their home in Sherborn.
- Massachusetts Court Rules 3rd Party Auto Property Damage Claimants Cannot Recover Inherent Diminished Value DamagesInherent diminished value claims are based on the theory that some stigma attaches to a vehicle from its involvement in a prior collision, such that its market value is diminished even though the vehicle has been restored to its pre-collision physical condition.
- Sonsie Suit: Mass. Appeals Court Reverses Superior Court Ordering Entry Of At Least $4.5m In Punitive Damages Against Liberty MutualIn an unusual decision, the Appeals Court has ordered the Superior Court to enter, on remand, punitive damages of not less than $4.5 million nor more than $9 million against Liberty Mutual.
- Court Rules An Obscure Statute Cured Contract Breach For A Three-Year Delay In Undisputed Claim PaymentA discussion of a recent Appellate Division of the District Court ruling a little-used statute can protect an insurance entity from a breach of contract for the payment of money.
- Mass. Court Bars Suit Seeking Plymouth Rock To Pay Title, Registration, And Inspection Fees On Total LossesA class action complaint against Plymouth Rock sought a ruling on regulatory costs for first-party total loss claims.
- The JMA v. Zurich Appeals Court Ruling: A Warning Against Insurers’ Delayed Payment of Insureds’ Legal Fees”Appeals Case Revisits Underlying Lawsuit Involving Zurich Insurance Duty to Defend Dispute.
- 176D Claim Violation: Zurich Hit With A $2.8m PenaltyUnderlying Case Involved a 2014 Motorcycle Accident in Billerica
- AmGuard’s Unique Endorsement Leads To Both Coverage and 93A LiabilityCourt Decision Delivers Message About Policy Interpretation and Claims Handling to Massachusetts Property Insurers
