Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 176 (2026)

Larceny by agent or broker

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 176. An insurance agent or broker who acts in negotiating or renewing or continuing a policy of insurance or an annuity or pure endowment contract issued by a company lawfully doing business in the commonwealth, and who receives any money or substitute for money as a premium for such a policy or contract from the insured or holder thereof, shall be deemed to hold such premium in trust for the company. If he fails to pay the same over to the company after written demand made upon him therefor, less his commission and any deductions to which, by the written consent of the company, he may be entitled, such failure shall be prima facie evidence that he has used or applied the said premium for a purpose other than paying the same over to the company, and upon conviction thereof he shall be guilty of larceny.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1936–2013 · leading case: Breed's Hill Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Fravel (In re Fravel), 485 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Breed's Hill Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Fravel (In re Fravel), 485 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013). · cites it 4× “” Specifically, Breed’s Hill alleged that the Debtor, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 176 , collected insurance premiums and appropriated them for his own use, rather than “holdftng] those premiums in fiduciary trust and turning] them over to Plaintiff.”

Commonwealth v. Baker, 330 N.E.2d 794 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 2× “They argue that “if they were guilty of any criminal offense, it *82 was under G. L. c. 175, § 176,” but that in any event the Commonwealth cannot prevail under that statute because it did not allege a crime thereunder and further it failed to show that Continental or American…”

Commonwealth v. Bowden, 855 N.E.2d 758 (Mass. 2006). “58, 82-83 (1975) (interpreting G. L. c. 175, § 176). The provisions in question do not prohibit proof by means other than the kind specifically mentioned.”

Deluty v. Comm'r of Ins., 386 N.E.2d 730 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “We have no difficulty with the implicit assumption by the Commissioner that where there is no substantial dispute, intentional withholding of monies due an insurance company by a broker is indicative of untrustworthiness subject to sanctions under § 166 — particularly if that…”

Guindon Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Com. Union Ins., 445 N.E.2d 167 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). “(3) Guindon’s failure to remit insurance premiums paid to it on policies issued by Commercial provided ample factual and legal basis for the defendant to cancel the plaintiff’s agency.”

Munro v. Bowers, 200 N.E. 393 (Mass. 1936). “The judge found that “the relation between the defendant’s intestate and the plaintiff was that of debtor and creditor and that, notwithstanding G. L. c. 175, § 176, the defendant’s intestate did not hold the premiums in trust for Lloyd’s,” and found generally for the plaintiff…”

Middlesex Ins. v. DeCristoforo, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 969 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “See G. L. c. 175, § 176. See also Union Mut. Cas.”

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.