Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXII Chapter 175
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L (2026)

Uninsured motorists; insufficient liability limits; coverage

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 113L. (1) No policy shall be issued or delivered in the commonwealth with respect to a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer registered in this state unless such policy provides coverage in amounts or limits prescribed for bodily injury or death for a liability policy under this chapter, under provisions approved by the insurance commissioner, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom; and, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, such coverage shall include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency.

(2) For the purpose of said coverage, if the policyholder or obligor elects to purchase the coverage described in this paragraph, the term ''uninsured motor vehicle'' shall also include protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of insured motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers, to which a bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident and its bodily injury liability bond amount or policy limit is less than the policy limit for uninsured motor vehicle coverage and is insufficient to satisfy the damages of persons insured thereunder and only to the extent that the uninsured motor vehicle coverage limits exceed said limits of bodily injury liability subject to the terms of the policy. The amounts recoverable hereunder shall not be affected by any statutory limits of liability applicable to the tortfeasor, including, but not limited to, amounts recoverable under section fifteen of chapter eighty-four, sections eighty-five G and eighty-five K of chapter two hundred and thirty-one, and section two of chapter two hundred and fifty-eight. The policyholder or obligor shall be notified that he may elect to purchase the said coverage, and such notification shall be at such times and in a manner prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.

(3) An insurer's extension of coverage as provided in paragraph (2) shall be applicable only to accidents occurring during a policy period in which its insured's uninsured motor vehicle coverage is in effect and where the liability insurer of the tort-feasor has been declared to be insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction as of the accident date, or has been declared to be insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction within one year after the accident date. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent any insurer from extending coverage under the terms and conditions more favorable to its insured than is provided hereunder.

(4) In the event of payment to any person under the coverage provided by this section and subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, the insurer making such payment shall, to the extent thereof, be entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization legally responsible for the bodily injury for which such payment is made, including the proceeds recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer; provided, however, that, subject to the definitions and limitations of uninsured motor vehicle coverage set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the insurer shall not be entitled to any such proceeds unless and until the person insured under the coverage required or elected to be purchased under this section has received full compensation for his injuries, including death resulting therefrom; and provided, further, that with respect to payments made by reason of the extension of coverage described in paragraphs (2) and (3), the insurer making such payment shall not be entitled to any right of recovery against such tort-feasor in excess of the proceeds recovered from such insolvent insurer of said tort-feasor.

(5) Uninsured motorists coverage shall provide that regardless of the number of vehicles involved, whether insured or not, persons covered, claims made, premiums paid or the number of premiums shown on the policy, in no event shall the limit of liability for two or more vehicles or two or more policies be added together combined or stacked to determine the limits of insurance coverage available to injured persons. An insured who is not a named insured on any policy providing uninsured motorist coverage may recover only from the policy of a resident relative providing the highest limits of such coverage whether or not such vehicle was involved in the accident; provided, however, if there are two or more such policies which provide such coverage at the same limits a pro rata contribution will be made. Any injured occupants who are not named insureds on a policy and who are not insured on a resident relative's policy may obtain uninsured motorist coverage from the named insured's policy covering the vehicle they occupy when injured. A person who is a named insured and who suffers bodily injury or death:

(a) while occupying a nonowned motor vehicle registered for highway use may recover only from the policy providing the highest limits of uninsured motorist coverage on which such person is the named insured, provided, however, if there are two or more such policies which provide such coverage at the same limits a pro rata contribution will be made;

(b) while occupying an owned motor vehicle registered for highway use and which had in effect the coverage required by this section shall recover uninsured motorist coverage only from the policy covering such occupied vehicle, provided, however, if there are two or more such policies, a pro rata contribution will be made. An insured who suffers bodily injury or death while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured which is registered for highway use and does not have in effect the coverage required by section thirty-four A of chapter ninety may not recover uninsured motorist coverage from any policy. No uninsured motorist coverage shall apply from any policy if a named insured suffers bodily injury or death while occupying an owned motor vehicle registered for highway use being used at the time as a public or livery conveyance and which is not insured for uninsured motorist coverage.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 134 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Hartford Ins. v. Hertz Corp., 572 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hartford Ins. v. Hertz Corp., 572 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1991). · cites it 20× “824 (1974), reasoning that the statute in force at the time, which provided for compulsory underinsured motorist coverage, G. L. c. 175, § 113L (1984 ed.), applied exclusively to motor vehicle liability “policies,” and therefore did not apply to self-insurers like Hertz, who…”
Thattil v. Dominican Sisters of Charity of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, Inc., 613 N.E.2d 908 (Mass. 1993). · cites it 22× “[6] The Superior Court judge held that, pursuant to the intended legislative policy of G.L.c. 175, § 113L, as amended through St.”
Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. v. Quane, 442 Mass. 704 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 16× “Thus, the uninsured motor vehicle provision is not construed against Norfolk & Dedham, but in conformity with the relevant statute, G. L. c. 175, § 113L, which dictates its content.”
Santos v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 556 N.E.2d 983 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 12× “Whether the defendant Lumbermens is subrogated under the policies to any sums that the plaintiffs may recover from third-party nonmotorist tortfeasors due to underinsurance coverage payments that Lumbermens may make to the plaintiffs under the policies in excess of the $10,000…”
Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 476 N.E.2d 200 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 8× “In this case, we are asked to decide the validity of the “regular use exclusion” in the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage under G. L. c. 175, § 113L. 1 The case was *451 submitted to a Superior Court judge on a statement of agreed facts, and he granted declaratory relief…”
Johnson v. Hanover Ins., 508 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 10× “In Cardin , we held that a policy provision could not exclude an insured’s recovery for losses caused by an uninsured motorist which the Legislature required be insured against, G. L. c. 175, § 113L, or the insured be given the option of insuring against, G.”
Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins., 892 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 7× “This appeal presents a question of interpretation of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, seventh edition, considered in light of the uninsured motorist statute, G. L. c. 175, § 113L. It arises from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant insurance…”
Royal Indem. Co. v. Blakely, 360 N.E.2d 864 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 4× “In adopting G. L. c. 175, § 113L, in its present form, the Legislature gave the Commissioner authority to interpret the scope of § 113L to limit recovery to $5,000 where there were multiple policies in one household.”
Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 5× “This case raises a straightforward question of law: Is the physical contact requirement of the defendant’s motor vehicle insurance policy unenforceable as a perversion of the aims of the uninsured motorist statute, G. L. c. 175, § 113L? The plaintiff brought a complaint for…”
Chenard v. Com. Ins., 799 N.E.2d 108 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 6× “This case requires us to interpret a provision of the uninsured motorist law, G. L. c. 175, § 113L (5), which was added by the Automobile Insurance Reform Act of 1988.”
Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Saf. Ins., 787 N.E.2d 555 (Mass. 2003). · cites it 7× “Thus, the UM provision is not construed against the insurance company, but in conformity with the statute, G. L. c. 175, § 113L, which dictates its content.”
Oliveira v. Com. Ins. Co., 112 N.E.3d 1206 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 10× “G. L. c. 175, § 113L (5). The same result, therefore, should follow.”
Show all 134 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(1) — 16 cases
James M. Dickau v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 ME 158 (Me. 2014).
Pilgrim Ins. v. Molard, 897 N.E.2d 1231 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).
Mercadante v. Worcester Ins., 816 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).
Amiga Mut. Ins. v. Bagley, 546 N.E.2d 184 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).
Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Premier Ins., 787 N.E.2d 550 (Mass. 2003).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(2) — 23 cases
Alguila v. Saf. Ins., 624 N.E.2d 79 (Mass. 1993).
Colwell v. Allstate Ins., 2003 VT 5 (Vt. 2003).
Beals v. Com. Union Ins., 808 N.E.2d 824 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).
Robinson v. Charles A. Flynn Ins. Agency, Inc., 653 N.E.2d 207 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995).
Cecere v. Aetna Ins., 766 A.2d 696 (N.H. 2001).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(4) — 3 cases
Kral v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo. 1989).
Amiga Mut. Ins. v. Bagley, 546 N.E.2d 184 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).
Ziolkowski v. Cont'l Ins., 396 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(5) — 17 cases
Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins., 892 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “This appeal presents a question of interpretation of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy, seventh edition, considered in light of the uninsured motorist statute, G. L. c. 175, § 113L. It arises from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant insurance…”
Mercadante v. Worcester Ins., 816 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).
Oliveira v. Com. Ins. Co., 112 N.E.3d 1206 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “G. L. c. 175, § 113L (5). The same result, therefore, should follow.”
Valley Forge Ins. v. Katz, 829 N.E.2d 1160 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005).
Arbella Mut. Ins. v. Hughes, 628 N.E.2d 1305 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 113L(5)(a) — 1 case
England v. John Hancock Prop. & Cas. Ins., 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 379 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994).
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.