Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 63 (2026)

Insurance company information requested by department; rating organizations; notices furnished by companies

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 63. Insurance companies insuring employees under this chapter shall, at the request of the department, furnish it in writing any information required in connection with the administration by said department of this chapter, including any statistics and the names of all employers insured by them. Notice of issuance of a policy of insurance insuring employers under this chapter shall be given to the rating organization authorized by section fifty-two C by the company issuing such policy within five days after the date of issuance thereof. No further notice need be filed in case such insurance is renewed, extended or otherwise continued by such company. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or shall not be otherwise terminated until ten days after written notice of such cancellation or termination is given to the rating organization or until a notice has been received by said organization that the employer has secured insurance from another insurance company or has otherwise insured the payment of compensation provided for by this chapter; provided, however, that if the reason for cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, if the insurance agent, broker, producer or insurer receives the amount of premium due on or before the effective date of cancellation, the assigned carrier shall issue an accurate renewal policy. Said organization shall immediately make available to the department, by electronic transmission or otherwise, all information collected pursuant to this section. The organization may charge companies for the reasonable cost of gathering, processing and maintaining the data.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2015 · leading case: Frost v. David C. Wells Ins. Agency, Inc., 438 N.E.2d 1086 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frost v. David C. Wells Ins. Agency, Inc., 438 N.E.2d 1086 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 6× “On September 24, 1975, Zurich issued a workers’ compensation insurance policy for a period of nine months and, on November 17, sent written notice of that fact to the Division of Industrial Accidents (Division) *307 pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 63. The notice stated that the…”

Merchants Ins. Grp. v. Spicer, 38 N.E.3d 1018 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3× “Among the coverage issues commonly addressed in the DIA are those relating to the requirements of G. L. c. 152, § 63 (for voluntarily issued policies), and G.”

Cummings's Case, 754 N.E.2d 715 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 3× ““On September 24, 1975, [the insurer] issued a workers’ compensation insurance policy for a period of nine months and, on November 17, sent written notice of that fact to the [department], pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 63.[ 14 ] The notice stated that the policy was issued for a…”

Pillman's Case, 866 N.E.2d 990 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “305, 306-309 (1982) (construing G. L. c. 152, § 63). Under the board’s precedents, G.”

St. Paul Companies v. TIG Premier Ins., 792 N.E.2d 666 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “Paul relied specifically on the following portion of G. L. c. 152, § 63, as amended through St.”

Armstrong's Case, 716 N.E.2d 114 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “305, 306-309 (1982), we interpreted G. L. c. 152, § 63, which sets out the guidelines for terminating all policies of workers’ compensation insurance.”

St. Paul Companies v. TIG Premier Ins., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 42 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “231 A, seeking an interpretation of G.L.c. 152, §63, may be brought in this court when the issue involves only an interpretation of law; and (5) that Utica, supra, is distinguishable from the case at bar and thus the exhaustion doctrine it holds is inapplicable.”

Hartford Roofing Co. v. Cigna Ins., 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 379 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “*380 Hartford argues for summary judgment on two grounds: 1) Cigna failed to comply with G.L.c. 152, §63, which requires that insurance companies notify the Workers Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (“the Bureau”) at least ten days in advance of…”

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.