Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 26B (2026)

Concurrent service of two or more employers; joint and several liability of insurers

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 26B. When an employee employed in the concurrent service of two or more insured employers receives a personal injury compensable under this chapter while performing a duty which is common to such employers, the liability of their insurers under this chapter shall be joint and several. Each insurer or self-insurer liable under this section shall pay compensation according to the proportion of the wages paid by its insured in relation to the concurrent wage which the employee received from all insured employers.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1968–2020 · leading case: Hodgate v. Ferraro, 3 A.3d 92 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hodgate v. Ferraro, 3 A.3d 92 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). “We also are mindful of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 152, § 26B (2000), which provides in relevant part: “When an employee employed in the concurrent service of two or more insured employers receives a personal injury compensable under this chapter while performing a duty which is…”

Williams v. Westover Finishing Co., 506 N.E.2d 166 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “Indeed, G. L. c. 152, § 26B, expressly contemplates multiple employers and provides that insurers would be jointly and severally liable to an employee injured while performing services common to the two employers.”

Sylva's Case, 709 N.E.2d 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “Worker’s compensation benefits were not to be apportioned between the employers’ insurers under G. L. c. 152, § 26B 3 ; rather, benefits were to be paid entirely by the insurer of the employer for whom the employee was working when injured.”

Robinson's Case, 236 N.E.2d 889 (Mass. 1968). “The principal contention with respect to the matter of concurrent service is that the payment of compensation should have been apportioned between the Center’s and Star’s insurers under G. L. c. 152, § 26B, inserted by St. 1957, c.”

Kyana Jinks, Antwione Taylor, Lee Tremblay, & Others, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Credico (Usa) LLC, Dfw Consultants, Inc., & Jason Ward (Mass. Super. Ct. 2020). “See G.L. c. 152, § 26B. But the Appeals Court has assumed, without expressly deciding, that two entities can similarly both be liable to a single employee as joint employers under the Wage Act or the overtime statute.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.