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

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

Appeals from application of safe driver insurance plan

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

Section 113P. Any insured aggrieved by any determination of an insurer as to the application of any provision of the safe driver insurance plan established by the commissioner pursuant to the provisions of section one hundred and thirteen B may, within thirty days thereafter, file a written complaint with the board of appeals on motor vehicle policies and bonds, hereinafter called the board. Such complaint shall be accompanied by a filing fee to be determined by the board. The board may deny such appeal without a hearing on the basis of the standards of fault to be promulgated by the board. In the notice of its decision to deny the complaint by the insured, the board shall notify the insured that he has a right to a hearing on the application of the safe driver insurance plan.

The board shall provide the insurer and the insured with at least ten days notice of any hearing held under this section. If, after a hearing, the board finds that the application of the safe driver insurance plan was in accordance with the standards promulgated by the board and the provisions of the safe driver insurance plan established by the commissioner, it shall deny the appeal. If the board finds that the insurer's application of the safe driver insurance plan was not in accordance with said standards and provisions, it shall order the insurer to make the appropriate premium adjustment. The board may designate a person to act as a hearing officer pursuant to this section. The hearing officer shall file a memorandum of his findings or order in the office of the board, and shall send a copy to the insurer and the insured.

Any person or company aggrieved by any finding or order of the board may appeal therefrom to the superior court department of the trial court, pursuant to the provisions of section fourteen of chapter thirty A. The appellant shall file with his appeal a duly certified copy of the complaint and of the finding and order thereon, and, if the appeal is taken from a finding and order of the board in respect to a cancellation, the clerk of such court shall forthwith, upon the filing of such an appeal, give written notice of the filing thereof to the registrar of motor vehicles and to the appellee. Said court shall, after such notice to the parties as it deems reasonable, give a summary hearing on such appeal and shall have such jurisdiction in equity to review all questions of fact and law, and to affirm or reverse such finding or order and may make any appropriate decree. Said court or justice may allow such appeal, finding or order to be amended. The decision of the court or justice shall be final. The clerk of such court shall, within two days after entry thereof, send an attested copy of the decree to each of the parties and the commissioner and to said registrar, or his office. Said court or justice may make such order as to costs as it or he deems equitable. Said court may make reasonable rules to secure prompt hearings on such appeals and a speedy disposition thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: DiLoreto v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 418 N.E.2d 612 (Mass. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DiLoreto v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 418 N.E.2d 612 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 8× “The plaintiff challenges the “merit rating” provisions of G. L. c. 175, § 113P, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Almeida v. Travelers Ins., 418 N.E.2d 602 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 5× “Travelers also imposed a surcharge in accordance with the “merit rating” provisions of G. L. c. 175, § 113P, as amended through St.”
Merisme v. Bd. of Appeals on Motor Veh. Liab. Policies & Bonds, 539 N.E.2d 1052 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 3× “Merisme petitioned, under G. L. c. 175, § 113P, for review of that decision to the Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board).”
Nercessian v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Veh. Liab. Policies & Bonds, 709 N.E.2d 1134 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 8× “Nercessian proceeded to appeal the board’s decision to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 175, § 113P, third par., which, as amended through St.”
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 451 N.E.2d 95 (Mass. 1983). “G. L. c. 175, § 113P. See 1982 Post Audit Committee report, at 25.”
Massachusetts Auto. Rating & Accident Prevention Bureau v. Comm'r of Ins., 411 N.E.2d 762 (Mass. 1980). “G. L. c. 175, § 113P, inserted by St. 1976, c.”
Massachusetts Auto. Rating & Accident Prevention Bureau v. Comm'r of Ins., 424 N.E.2d 1127 (Mass. 1981). “Effective November 1, 1976, G. L. c. 175, § 113P, inserted by St. 1976, c.”
Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 417 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1981). “G. L. c. 175, § 113P (the “Merit Rating System” law).”
Yazbek v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Veh. Liab. Policies & Bonds, 670 N.E.2d 200 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “The insureds appealed, pursuant to G. L. c. 175, § 113P, to the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (“board”) which upheld the surcharges after hearings.”
Adoption of Karla, 703 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “226, 230 (1981) (decision by Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds, which was appeal-able under G. L. c. 175, § 113P, and c. 30A, § 14, was binding on subsequent small claims proceeding on issue of liability).”
Prescott v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Veh. Liab. Policies & Bonds, 674 N.E.2d 1086 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). “The Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (board) upheld the surcharge, but on Prescott’s appeal under G. L. c. 175, § 113P, a Superior Court judge determined that the board’s decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence.”
Beck v. People's Serv. Ins. Co., 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 364 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “Beck now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision pursuant to G.L.c. 175, §113P and c. 30A, § 14, asserting that the decision was unsupported by substantial evidence.”
Show all 36 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.