Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title IV Chapter 258
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 4 (2026)

Instituting claims; final denial; limitation of actions

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

Section 4. A civil action shall not be instituted against a public employer on a claim for damages under this chapter unless the claimant shall have first presented his claim in writing to the executive officer of such public employer within two years after the date upon which the cause of action arose, and such claim shall have been finally denied by such executive officer in writing and sent by certified or registered mail, or as otherwise provided by this section; provided, however, that a civil action against a public employer which relates to the sexual abuse of a minor, as provided in section 4C of chapter 260, shall be governed by section 4C1/2 of said chapter 260 and shall not require presentment of such claim pursuant to this section. The failure of the executive officer to deny such claim in writing within six months after the date upon which it is presented, or the failure to reach final arbitration, settlement or compromise of such claim according to the provisions of section five, shall be deemed a final denial of such claim. No civil action shall be brought more than three years after the date upon which such cause of action accrued; provided, however, that an action which relates to the sexual abuse of a minor, as defined in said section 4C of said chapter 260, shall be governed by said section 4C1/2 of said chapter 260. Disposition of any claim by the executive officer of a public employer shall not be competent evidence of liability or amount of damages.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, in the case of a city or town, presentment of a claim pursuant to this section shall be deemed sufficient if presented to any of the following: mayor, city manager, town manager, corporation counsel, city solicitor, town counsel, city clerk, town clerk, chairman of the board of selectmen, or executive secretary of the board of selectmen; provided, however, that in the case of the commonwealth, or any department, office, commission, committee, council, board, division, bureau, institution, agency or authority thereof, presentment of a claim pursuant to this section shall be deemed sufficient if presented to the attorney general.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted by third-party complaint, cross claim, or counter-claim, or to small claims brought against housing authorities pursuant to sections twenty-one to twenty-five, inclusive, of chapter two hundred and eighteen; provided however, that no small claim shall be brought against a housing authority more than three years after the date upon which the cause of action arose.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 286 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Spring v. Geriatric Auth. of Holyoke, 475 N.E.2d 727 (Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spring v. Geriatric Auth. of Holyoke, 475 N.E.2d 727 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 10× “Because the plaintiff failed to comply with the presentment and notice requirements of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, § 4, as appearing in St. 1978, c.”
Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “at 392-93 (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 4 ). Haley moved to alter or amend the judgment.”
John Doe v. Cambridge Pub. Schs.., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 482 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 18× “This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, on the basis of failure to comply with the presentment requirement of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), G. L. c. 258,…”
Vasys v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 438 N.E.2d 836 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 6× “On that date, the defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment,” asserting, among other things, that the plaintiff had failed to comply with G. L. c. 258, § 4, “in that he [had] not first presented his claim in writing to the executive officer of the…”
Gilmore v. Commonwealth, 632 N.E.2d 838 (Mass. 1994). · cites it 7× “The defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s letter of presentment under G. L. c. 258, § 4 (1992 ed.), was inadequate to advise them of his claim.”
Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 4× “Under G.L.c. 258, § 4, claimants are permitted to file notices of claims within two years of the dates on which their causes of action accrue.”
Berube v. City of Northampton, 602 N.E.2d 560 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 8× “), 2 he has essentially become a third-party plaintiff and, as such, is exempt from compliance with the two-year presentment requirement of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (tort claims act), G. L. c. 258, § 4 (1990 ed.). Summary judgment was granted because the plaintiff had…”
Gallant v. Worcester, 421 N.E.2d 1196 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 5× “Her complaint alleged negligent design, construction, and maintenance of Lincoln Square and further asserted "[p]roper request for investigation was made" pursuant to G.L.c. 258, § 4. See Pruner v. Clerk of the Superior Court in the County of Norfolk, 382 Mass.”
Mcgrath v. Stanley Carver, 493 N.E.2d 832 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 8× “The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the defendants, as third-party plaintiffs, have a right to seek contribution from a public entity when the actions brought by the original plaintiffs against the public entity are barred because the plaintiffs failed to comply…”
Garcia v. Essex Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 837 N.E.2d 284 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 7× “At issue in this appeal is the frequently litigated location of the boundary between a sufficient and an insufficient presentment of a claim under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), G. L. c. 258, § 4. We conclude, as did the motion judge in the Superior Court, that…”
Daveiga v. Boston Pub. Health Comm'n, 869 N.E.2d 586 (Mass. 2007). · cites it 6× “We conclude that, under G. L. c. 258, § 4, presentment on the commission must be to its executive director, and not, as the plaintiff argues, to the mayor of Boston or to the Attorney General.”
George v. Town of Saugus, 474 N.E.2d 169 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 7× “The judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff had failed to make presentment of her claim within two years of the date the cause of action arose, *41 as required by G. L. c. 258, § 4. 1 The plaintiff contends that the two-year period did not…”
Show all 286 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 4(2) — 1 case
Howard v. North Cambridge Health Ctr., 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 405 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004).
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.