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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 22H (2026)

Refusal to issue or renew motor vehicle liability policies or bonds; suspension of license; public hearings; definitions

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

Section 22H. If any company refuses to issue motor vehicle liability policies or bonds as set forth in sections thirty-four A and thirty-four O of chapter ninety without a written determination by the commissioner that such refusal, which may be a refusal in whole or in part, is justifiably required to protect the solvency of the refusing company, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing at which the company may appeal the commissioner's initial determination concerning solvency and at which shall be considered whether the company's refusal to write motor vehicle liability policies or bonds is contrary to the public interest by disrupting the market for said insurance in the commonwealth. If the commissioner finds, on the basis of said public hearing, that the company's refusal is not justified by the protection of solvency and is contrary to the public interest, he shall suspend such company's licenses to issue or sell any other form of insurance within the commonwealth until such company resumes the issuance or renewal of motor vehicle liability policies or bonds in compliance with the laws and rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioner. For purposes of this section, a refusal to issue motor vehicle liability policies or bonds shall be sufficiently evidenced by a single notice of cancellation or non-renewal for grounds other than those specifically permitted in the general laws. For purposes of this section, the commissioner may at his discretion treat all insurers who by virtue of their business associations or common ownerships represent themselves to be or are customarily known as an ''insurance company group'', or similar insurance trade designation, as a single insurer.

The provisions of this section shall not invalidate any insurance policy issued or renewed by an insurance company suspended pursuant to the authorization contained in this section prior to such suspension.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1991 · leading case: Maryland Cas. Co. v. Comm'r of Ins., 363 N.E.2d 1087 (Mass. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Comm'r of Ins., 363 N.E.2d 1087 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 3× “A deputy commissioner issued his findings and order on August 24, 1976, in which he made the following conclusions of law: (1) Maryland Casualty violated G. L. c. 175, § 22H, by refusing to write automobile insurance business, 2 thereby disrupting the market for such insurance…”
Reliance Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 581 N.E.2d 1027 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 3× “Adding that a number of recent withdrawals and attempted withdrawals had created confusion and had imposed additional burdens on remaining companies, he warned that Reliance’s abrupt withdrawal could be considered disruptive and could subject it to a proceeding under G. L. c.…”
Frontier Mgmt. Co. v. Balboa Ins., 622 F. Supp. 1016 (D. Mass. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs also assert the defendants have violated M.G.L. c. 175, §§ 22H and 113F. Defendants have acknowledged that § 22H applies.”
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.