Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 112 (2026)

Payment of losses; regulations

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 112. The liability of any company under a motor vehicle liability policy, as defined in section thirty-four A of chapter ninety, or under any other policy insuring against liability for loss or damage on account of bodily injury or death, or for loss or damage resulting therefrom, or on account of damage to property, shall become absolute whenever the loss or damage for which the insured is responsible occurs, and the satisfaction by the insured of a final judgment for such loss or damage shall not be a condition precedent to the right or duty of the company to make payment on account of said loss or damage. No such contract of insurance shall be cancelled or annulled by any agreement between the company and the insured after the said insured has become responsible for such loss or damage, and any such cancellation or annulment shall be void. An insurance company shall not deny insurance coverage to an insured because of failure of an insured to seasonably notify an insurance company of an occurrence, incident, claim or of a suit founded upon an occurrence, incident or claim, which may give rise to liability insured against unless the insurance company has been prejudiced thereby.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 89 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1922–2024 · leading case: Darcy v. Hartford Ins. Co. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 554 N.E.2d 28 (Mass. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Darcy v. Hartford Ins. Co. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 554 N.E.2d 28 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 5× “Royal Globe defended on the basis that it had properly disclaimed coverage because United, its insured, had violated its policy obligations to provide seasonable notice of the claims and to cooperate in the defense thereof.”

Prodigy Commc'ns Corp. v. Agric. Excess & Surplus Ins. Co., 288 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. 2009). · cites it 2× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 112 (1988). The Massachusetts court said, without reference to the record, “the requirement that notice of the claim be given in the policy period or shortly thereafter in the claims-made policy is of the essence in determining whether coverage exists.”

Employers' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 684 N.E.2d 600 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 4× “As to the requirement of demonstrated prejudice, see also G. L. c. 175, § 112, which (as appearing in St.”

Boffoli v. Premier Ins., 880 N.E.2d 826 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff, however, points to G. L. c. 175, § 112, and argues that by the terms of that statute, Premier had to show that it was prejudiced by the late filing of the PIP application.”

Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Bowes, 409 N.E.2d 185 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “In light of the foregoing reasoning, we are of the opinion that our prior decisions relative to the delayed notice of an accident and the delayed notice of the institution of a suit have been too restrictive and should be changed. Accordingly, we hold that where an insurance…”

Goodman v. Am. Cas. Co., 643 N.E.2d 432 (Mass. 1994). · cites it 3× “Under G. L. c. 175, § 112 (1992 ed.), an insurance corn-pony providing motor vehicle insurance against liability to another may not deny coverage because of the insured’s failure to notify the company seasonably of an occurrence that might give rise to liability “unless the…”

E. Prods. Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 787 N.E.2d 1089 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “12 On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the judge erred in determining that they had failed to provide timely notice of their claims to Maryland and that, in any event, Maryland did not satisfy its burden required by G. L. c. 175, § 112, to demonstrate that it suffered any…”

Sherwood Brands, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins., 13 A.3d 1268 (Md. 2011). · cites it 2× “24 See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 112 (2010); 25 Wis.”

Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 571 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. 1991). “278, 282 (1980); G. L. c. 175, § 112 (1988 ed.). Having reviewed the record, however, we conclude that neither Liberty Mutual’s motion nor the judge’s ruling was based on the defense of late notice.”

Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Great N. Ins. Co., 45 N.E.3d 1283 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 175, § 112; Boyle v. Zurich Am. Ins.”

Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Valley Manufactured Prods. Co., 765 F. Supp. 1121 (D. Mass. 1991). · cites it 4× “In 1977, the Legislature amended Mass.Gen.L. ch. 175, § 112. This amendment provides that “[a]n insurance company shall not deny insurance coverage to an insured because of failure of an insured to seasonably notify an insurance company of an occurrence, incident, claim or of a…”

Bellanti v. Boston Pub. Health Comm'n, 874 N.E.2d 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “750, § 1 (failure to give notice of breach of warranty “shall not bar recovery under this section unless the defendant proves that he was prejudiced thereby”); G. L. c. 175, § 112, inserted by St. 1977, c.”

Show all 89 citing cases →

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.