Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 34K (2026)

Cancellation of policies; notice

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 34K. No power of attorney in connection with the cancellation of a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A shall be exercised until ten days' notice has been given to the policyholder by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, by the person or corporation exercising the power of attorney. Notice to the insurance company of the cancellation of such a policy by a person or corporation exercising the power of attorney shall be accompanied by a statement of compliance with this section, and the insurance company may rely upon such statement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1967–1978 · leading case: Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins., 374 N.E.2d 585 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins., 374 N.E.2d 585 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). · cites it 2× “[5] Parenthetically, we do not understand how a theory of tortious interference with contract can have any application to Colony, because the latter, in cancelling the contract, was simply trying to protect its own economic interest by exercising its contractual right to apply…”

White v. Edwards, 227 N.E.2d 354 (Mass. 1967). · cites it 2× “Notice to the insurance company of the cancellation of such a policy by a person or corporation exercising the power of attorney shall be accompanied by a statement of compliance with this section, and the insurance company may rely upon such statement.”

Maia v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 56 Mass. App. Dec. 28 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1975). · cites it 3× “255-C and also by the provisions of G.L.c. 90, §34K, relating to cancellation of motor vehicle liability policies under a power of attorney.”

Lurie v. Am. Fid. Co., 37 Mass. App. Dec. 11 (1967). · cites it 4× “’ The court further stated that the cancellation was invalid because the defendant failed to show any ten day notice to the plaintiffs as required by G.L. c. 90, §34K.” Whether or not the cancellation was invalid is immaterial to the issue raised by this re *16 port.”

Paparo v. Consum.'s Fin. Servs., Inc., 56 Mass. App. Dec. 183 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1975). “G.L. c. 90, §34K. G.L. c. 255C, §31. The defendant, General, on or about August 15, 1973 sent to the defendant, Consumer’s, the amount of unearned premium totalling $185.”

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.