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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 22 (2026)

Unauthorized policy provisions; effect

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

Section 22. No company and no officer or agent thereof shall make, issue or deliver any policy of insurance or any annuity or pure endowment contract containing any condition, stipulation or agreement depriving the courts of the commonwealth of jurisdiction of actions against it; limiting the time for commencing actions against it to a period of less than two years from the time when the cause of action accrues; making any person appointed and licensed as its agent the agent of the applicant or insured or holder of the policy or contract for any purpose; providing that no person shall be deemed an agent of the company unless authorized by the company in writing, or providing that any such policy or contract made in the commonwealth on lives, property or interests therein shall be governed by the laws of any state or country other than this commonwealth. Any such condition, stipulation or agreement shall be void.

No policy of insurance issued by a company under the authority of section twenty-four, one hundred and eight and one hundred and ten, and no contract or agreement entered into by the trustee of any trust fund authorized by chapter one hundred and fifty-one D, shall contain a provision excluding liability on the part of the insurance company or health and welfare fund for hospital, medical or surgical expenses if the insured is hospitalized or receives medical or surgical treatment in a state-operated veterans' home. Any such provision shall be void. Expenses as used in this paragraph shall mean the charges of such veterans' homes for the services rendered and such charges shall be deemed to have been legally incurred by persons insured under such policies notwithstanding that such person is entitled to benefits under chapter one hundred fifteen A or that no bill is, or would otherwise be, rendered by such veterans' homes with respect to such persons. The foregoing provisions shall apply to any group or non-group policy of insurance delivered, issued or renewed, by any domestic insurer under the authority of this chapter, or by any alien or foreign insurer to the extent such policies cover persons having a residence within the commonwealth, or to any employee health plan of any company or other business entity where the company or business entity is a self-insurer of such employee health plan.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1932–2021 · leading case: Brown v. Sav. Bank Life Ins. Co. of Mass., 107 N.E.3d 1163 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Sav. Bank Life Ins. Co. of Mass., 107 N.E.3d 1163 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 6× “Michelle agrees that the two-year time period in the policy had already lapsed by the time suit was filed on March 20, 2015, 9 and makes no argument that the limitations period is unenforceable as to the contract claim.”
Foster v. Grp. Health Inc., 830 N.E.2d 1061 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 2× “On appeal James argues for the first time that the choice of law provisions contained in the New York insurance policies at issue are invalid under G. L. c. 175, § 22. James is foreclosed from pursuing the point here.”
Creative Playthings Franchising, Corp. v. Reiser, 978 N.E.2d 765 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 175, § 22. 2. Discovery rule. Reiser argues that, under our discovery rule, contractually shortened limitations periods are not valid and enforceable if the limitations period ends before the injured party “could or should” have discovered the facts resulting in the…”
Luso-Am. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, 616 F. Supp. 846 (D. Mass. 1985). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff, for its part, contends that the bond’s condition, set forth above, violates M.G.L. c. 175, § 22 and is therefore unenforceable.”
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 140 Wash. 2d 517 (Wash. 2000). “Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 175, § 22 (West 1997).”
Goldsmith v. Reliance Ins., 228 N.E.2d 704 (Mass. 1967). “There, relying on G. L. c. 175, § 22, the court said, “Under our statutes no limitation can be made to run from the happening of the loss.”
DeCesare v. Metro. Life Ins., 81 A.L.R. 327 (Mass. 1932). “” They do not purport to affect the validity of temporary contracts to insure pending the issuance and delivery of the policy or other formal contract of insurance.”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Lexington Contracting Corp., 292 N.E.2d 874 (Mass. 1973). “The plaintiff contends that G. L. c. 175, § 22 1 and § 187A, 2 make this action timely despite the limitation of the bond.”
Nurse v. Omega US Ins., Inc., 38 N.E.3d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “In that case the court was faced with a conflict between G. L. c. 175, § 22, which provides that an insurance policy may not contain a provision that limits the time within which a cause of action accrues to less than two years, and § 99, which provides that the action must be…”
Marshall's Inc. v. Fed. Ins., 421 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “He thus concluded that the act of delivery of the policy, coupled with the mandates of G. L. c. 175, § 22, made the Massachusetts statute governing limitations of actions applicable.”
Tricentennial Eagle Ltd. P'ship v. Bankers Stand. Ins., 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “Tricentennial and Chartwell further maintain that where the language of the endorsement relied upon by Bankers Standard violates G.L.c. 175, §22, the endorsement is void and plaintiffs’ suit is subject to the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions set forth in G.”
Faustman v. Com. Ins., 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 264 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “However, Faustman points to a contrary statutory provision in G.L.c. 175, §22, which expressly prohibits the inclusion of various specified provisions in “any policy of insurance.”
Show all 14 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.