Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9 (2026)

Petition of an intervenor for review by supreme judicial court

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 9. If after any hearing under sections six or ten the report of the commissioner does not charge a violation of this chapter, then any intervenor in the proceedings may within thirty days after the service of such report, cause a petition to be filed in the supreme judicial court for a review of such report. Upon such review, the court shall have authority to issue appropriate orders and decrees in connection therewith, including, if the court finds that it is to the interest of the public, orders enjoining and restraining the continuance of any method of competition, act or practice which it finds, notwithstanding such report of the commissioner, constitutes a violation of this chapter and containing penalties pursuant to section seven.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002). “5, we held that claims by plaintiffs complaining of unfair debt collection practices had been properly dismissed for the plaintiffs’ failure to allege that the practices, although extreme and outrageous, had resulted in the “loss of money or property, real or personal.”

Curtis v. JJ. Duffy Adjustment Serv., Inc., 581 N.E.2d 493 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “93A and violations of G. L. c. 176D, § 9(c) and (/). The plaintiff’s father, Mr.”

Loftis v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 101 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995). “See G.L.c. 176D, §9(b) and (c). 7. Similarly, Liberty seeks to excuse some of the delay in reaching a settlement on the grounds that its adjuster was looking at the wrong set of doors for a considerable period of time.”

Batterymarch, LLC v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 119 N.E.3d 356 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “93A, § 9, and G. L. c. 176D, § 9, was added. In that order, the judge noted that any claim by Batterymarch against the trust for breach of fiduciary duty sounded in tort and was time-barred.”

Hampshire House Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.s (D. Mass. 2021). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9 (“An unfair claim settlement practice shall consist of .”

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Enrique Ramirez & Christina Zielenski (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025). “93A is to make "prompt and reasonable" settlement offer); see also G.L. c. 176D, § 9(d) (insurer must effectuate "prompt and fair" settlement).”

Simpson v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 636 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “It simply concludes that the defendant acted in bad faith and proceeds to summarize some of the requirements of G.L.c. 176D, §9. The plaintiff does not offer a specific description of alleged deceptive acts prior to the required demand letter.”

Brewster v. Arbella Mut. Ins., 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2008). “93A, §§2 and 9 and G.L.c. 176D, §9, I double the juiy’s damage award of $50,000.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9(3) — 1 case

Simpson v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 636 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994). “It simply concludes that the defendant acted in bad faith and proceeds to summarize some of the requirements of G.L.c. 176D, §9. The plaintiff does not offer a specific description of alleged deceptive acts prior to the required demand letter.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9(b) — 1 case

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9(c) — 1 case

Curtis v. JJ. Duffy Adjustment Serv., Inc., 581 N.E.2d 493 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “93A and violations of G. L. c. 176D, § 9(c) and (/). The plaintiff’s father, Mr.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 9(d) — 1 case

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.