Bad Faith Insurance Claim
When an insurer treats a fair claim unfairly.
When an insurance company handles a valid claim unfairly, Massachusetts law lets you demand far more than it once offered, and Larson Law can help you hold the insurer accountable.
- No fee unless we win
- Same-day response
- Free case review
As Seen On:
What a bad faith insurance claim really means.
When you file an insurance claim after an injury, the law expects the insurance company to deal with you honestly and fairly. Too often that is not what an injured person experiences. Claims are delayed for months, plainly valid injuries are questioned, and settlement offers arrive at a fraction of what a claim is worth, in the hope that financial pressure will force you to accept far less than you are owed. When that conduct crosses the line from hard bargaining into unfair or deceptive claim handling, Massachusetts law gives you a powerful response.
A bad faith insurance claim is the term people use for holding an insurer accountable when it mishandles a claim in bad faith, whether that is your own insurer or the insurer for the person who hurt you. It is not about a company that simply disagrees with you; it is about one that fails to investigate, ignores clear liability, misrepresents the coverage you bought, or refuses to pay what is obviously owed. Massachusetts treats that behavior as a violation of its consumer-protection law, not merely a breach of an insurance contract.
The stakes for the insurer are deliberately high, which is exactly why the remedy works. When an insurer’s conduct is a willful or knowing violation, or when it refuses a reasonable written demand in bad faith, the law lets an injured person recover well beyond the original claim, including multiplied damages and attorney’s fees. That shifts the leverage back toward the person who was wronged and gives insurers a concrete reason to treat honest claims fairly the first time.
Larson Law builds these cases the same careful way it builds any injury claim: documenting the underlying loss, the insurer’s specific conduct, and the demand the insurer ignored, then pursuing the full recovery the law allows, alongside the work of our Boston personal injury attorney practice. The insurer’s own claim file often becomes the most important evidence in the case.
Every claim at the firm is handled under the direction of Daniel J. Larson, whose background and credentials are set out on his attorney profile. From the first call you work directly with a lawyer who understands both the injury and the insurance conduct at the heart of a bad-faith case, and who can tell you plainly whether an insurer has crossed the line.
What surprises many people is how routine this conduct has become. Insurance companies are businesses, and every dollar not paid on a claim is a dollar kept, so the incentive to delay, dispute, and underpay is built into the system. The law does not ask injured people to simply accept that. It sets a standard of honest, prompt, and fair dealing and gives them a real way to enforce it. Recognizing when an insurer has crossed from tough negotiation into unlawful bad faith is the first step, and it is often clearer than people expect once the claim file and the timeline are laid out side by side.
What our clients say.
We hold insurers to the duty they owe you.
- We document the insurer's conduct, its claim file, and its timing, so bad-faith handling is shown, not merely alleged.
- We prove the full value of the underlying injury, because that is the figure the law multiplies when conduct is willful.
- We prepare the written demand that gives the insurer one clear chance to pay fairly and sets up enhanced damages.
- We know the Massachusetts unfair-practices rules and how insurers cross the line from hard bargaining into bad faith.
- We handle every communication with the insurer so nothing you say is turned around and used to justify underpaying you.
- No fee unless we win
- Free, private case review
- Same-day response
- Honest advice from day one
$300K+ Won For Clients
100+ 5-Star Google Reviews
8+ Years of Legal Expertise
98% Legal Success Rate
100+ Injured Victims Helped
No Win, No Fee Guaranteed
How Massachusetts law polices unfair insurers.
Two laws that work together
Massachusetts polices insurer misconduct through two statutes that operate as a pair. The first, G.L. c. 176D, § 3, defines a long list of unfair claim settlement practices, from failing to investigate a claim to refusing to make a prompt, fair settlement once liability has become reasonably clear. The second, the consumer-protection statute at G.L. c. 93A, § 9, gives the injured person the right to actually sue over that conduct and to recover for it. This pairing matters because c. 176D alone defines the wrong but is enforced by regulators; it is c. 93A that puts the remedy in the hands of the person the insurer mistreated, turning a regulatory standard into a private claim with real teeth.
What actually counts as an unfair practice
The conduct the law targets is specific, not vague dissatisfaction. It includes misrepresenting the terms or coverage of a policy, failing to acknowledge or act reasonably promptly on a claim, refusing to pay without conducting a reasonable investigation, failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time, and compelling an injured person to sue by offering substantially less than what is later recovered. The centerpiece is the failure to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement once liability has become reasonably clear. This matters because it means the question is not merely whether the insurer paid, but how it behaved along the way; an insurer can owe extra damages for the manner in which it handled a claim, even on top of the claim itself.
The written demand that drives the case
Before most of these claims can be filed, the statute requires a written demand for relief, sent to the insurer at least thirty days in advance, that identifies the claimant and describes the unfair conduct and the injury. This demand is not a formality; it is the hinge of the entire case. If the insurer makes a reasonable settlement offer in response, recovery may be limited to that offer, but if it ignores the demand or responds unreasonably to a claim where liability was clear, it exposes itself to the enhanced remedies. Because the wording and timing of that demand can decide the outcome, it is one of the most important documents a lawyer prepares in a bad-faith case.
Why insurers take these claims seriously
The reason this law changes insurer behavior is the size of the exposure. When a court finds that the violation was willful or knowing, or that the insurer refused relief in bad faith, the damages are doubled or tripled, and the insurer must also pay the injured person’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The amount that gets multiplied is the underlying judgment, which means unfair handling of a serious injury claim can multiply into a very substantial liability. That structure is intentional: it makes fair, prompt claim handling the far cheaper choice, and it gives an injured person the leverage to insist on it.
It is worth being precise about what this does and does not require. You do not have to prove the insurer acted out of pure malice, only that its handling of the claim was unfair or unreasonable under the standards the statute sets, and, to reach the enhanced damages, that the conduct was willful or knowing. Nor does a single honest mistake automatically create liability; the law looks at the overall course of conduct. But where an insurer had the information it needed, understood that liability was reasonably clear, and still failed to settle promptly and fairly, the record usually speaks for itself, and the same documentation that proves the injury tends to prove how the claim was mishandled.
There is also a practical reason the two statutes are read together. The unfair-practices statute was written to let state regulators police the insurance industry, and on its own it does not give an individual the right to sue. The consumer-protection statute supplies that right, treating a violation of the unfair-practices standards as a deceptive act an injured consumer can act on directly. The result is that the detailed list of prohibited claim-handling behaviors becomes a private cause of action, which is why Massachusetts is regarded as one of the stronger states in the country for holding insurers accountable for how they treat the people they insure and the people their insureds injure.
When a bad faith insurance claim arises.
The lowball offer that ignores the evidence
The most familiar form of bad faith is the offer that bears no relationship to the actual harm. When the medical records, the liability facts, and a fair accounting of what the claim is worth all point one direction, and the insurer offers a small fraction of it anyway, it is often betting that the injured person cannot afford to wait. When liability is reasonably clear, that tactic is not just aggressive negotiation; it is the kind of conduct the unfair-practices law was written to punish, especially where the lowball forces the claimant to file suit to recover what should have been paid.
Unreasonable delay and silence
Delay is a quieter but equally damaging form of bad faith. Months of unanswered calls, repeated requests for documents already provided, and a refusal to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time all wear down an injured person who is also facing mounting bills. For someone recovering from a serious, life-altering injury, that delay can be financially devastating, and the law treats an insurer’s failure to act promptly on a claim as a recognized unfair practice rather than an unavoidable part of the process.
Denial without a real investigation
An insurer is required to base its decisions on a reasonable investigation of all available information. A denial issued without genuinely examining the facts, or one that misrepresents what the policy actually covers, falls squarely within the conduct the statute forbids. These cases often turn on the insurer’s own claim file, which can reveal whether the company looked seriously at the claim or simply denied it, and building that record to show the difference is central to proving the full extent of the harm the conduct caused.
When it is your own insurer
Bad faith is not limited to the other side’s insurer. Your own company can mishandle a first-party claim just as unfairly, whether it is a no-fault medical benefits claim it drags out or an underinsured motorist claim it refuses to value honestly. The duty to deal fairly runs to its own policyholders too, and when a company you paid premiums to treats your claim in bad faith, the same statutes give you the same leverage to hold it accountable.
These patterns rarely appear in isolation. A single claim can involve a lowball offer, months of unexplained delay, and a denial that ignores the medical evidence, each one building on the last to pressure an injured person into giving up. Viewed individually, an insurer can usually explain any one step away; viewed together, on a timeline, they reveal a course of conduct a fair company would not have followed. That is why documenting the entire history of a claim, rather than reacting to each frustrating step on its own, is what ultimately makes an unfair-practices case provable.
First-party claims deserve particular attention, because the sense of betrayal is sharper when it is your own insurer. People reasonably assume the company they have paid for years will stand behind them, and they are often slower to suspect bad faith from their own insurer than from a stranger’s. That trust is exactly what an unfair first-party denial exploits, and the law refuses to reward it: the duty of good faith and fair dealing an insurer owes its own policyholder is at least as strong as any duty it owes a third party, and the same remedies apply when it is broken.
What you can recover when an insurer acts badly.
What a bad-faith recovery accounts for begins with the underlying claim itself, the medical costs, the lost income and diminished earning capacity, and the lasting effect of the injury, all of which the insurer should have paid fairly in the first place. On top of that, the law adds the multiplied damages and attorney’s fees that follow from the insurer’s conduct, which is what makes pursuing bad faith worthwhile rather than simply accepting an unfair result.
Proving the conduct, not just the injury, is what these cases require. The record has to show what the insurer knew, when it knew it, and how it responded, which is why the claim file, the correspondence, and the timing of every offer and denial matter so much. A carefully prepared demand that lays out liability, damages, and the unfair handling gives the insurer a clear chance to do the right thing, and creates the record that supports enhanced damages if it does not.
None of this is something an injured person should have to manage alone while also recovering and worrying about bills. Recognizing when firm negotiation has become unlawful bad faith takes experience with how these companies operate, and preserving the evidence early, before a claim file is closed and memories fade, is often what makes the difference between an ordinary settlement and full accountability for how a claim was handled.
It also helps to understand that pursuing bad faith does not put your underlying claim at risk; it strengthens your position. The written demand that anchors an unfair-practices case forces the insurer to confront the real value of the injury and the weakness of its own handling, and it frequently produces a fair settlement of the original claim precisely because the insurer now faces the prospect of multiplied damages and fees. Even when a case must proceed, the injured person is no longer negotiating from a position of weakness against a company that assumed it could simply wait them out.
The practical lesson is to keep good records and to get advice early. Save every letter and email, note the date and substance of every call, and hold on to any recorded-statement requests or written denials. That ordinary paper trail, combined with the insurer’s own claim file, is what turns a frustrating experience into a provable case, and having it reviewed before you accept any offer is often what preserves the leverage to demand what you are actually owed.
If an insurer has been treating you unfairly, the most important thing is not to face it alone or on the insurer’s timeline. A brief, free review of how your claim has been handled can tell you quickly whether the conduct crossed the line and what the law lets you demand in response.
Medical Bills and Future Care
Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
Pain, Suffering, and Hardship
Wrongful Death of a Loved One
Steps that build an unfair-practices case.
Save every claim record and message
Save every letter, email, and phone note from the insurer, with the dates. That paper trail is what later shows whether your claim was handled fairly or was unreasonably delayed, denied, or underpaid.
Do not accept that very first offer
A first offer is often far below what a claim is truly worth. Before you accept, get a clear picture of the full value and of how the insurer reached its number, so a lowball is not mistaken for fair.
Talk to a lawyer before you respond
Insurers move fast to close claims cheaply. Before you sign a release or accept any offer, a free review shows whether the handling crossed into bad faith and what the law will let you demand instead.
- 5.0 stars out of 100+ reviews
Talk to us about your bad faith insurance claim.
If an insurer is stalling, lowballing, or denying a claim it should be paying, you may have more leverage than you think. Talk with our team, or with our Boston personal injury attorney office, for a free, no-pressure review of how your claim has been handled and what the law lets you demand.
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that doing so does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not include confidential information. Contacting us does not obligate you to retain our services.
Our Clients.
Our Practice Areas.
Larson Law represents injured people across Massachusetts in the full range of accident and injury claims, from car and truck crashes to serious falls and workplace injuries, and in holding insurers accountable when they handle those claims unfairly.
Unfair-insurer questions, answered plainly.
What does bad faith by an insurer actually mean?
It means the insurer did more than drive a hard bargain; it handled your claim in a way the law defines as unfair. Failing to investigate, ignoring clear liability, misrepresenting coverage, or refusing to make a prompt fair settlement once liability is clear all cross that line into conduct you can act on.
Is a low settlement offer enough to prove it?
Not by itself. Insurers are allowed to negotiate. It becomes actionable when the offer is unreasonable given clear liability and well-documented damages, especially when the low number is designed to force you into a lawsuit to recover what should have been paid. The gap between the offer and the real value is the key.
Does this apply to my own insurer or only the other side?
Both. Your own insurer owes you a duty of fair dealing on a first-party claim just as the other side’s insurer does, whether it is a no-fault medical claim or an underinsured motorist claim. When a company you paid premiums to mishandles your claim, the same protections apply against it.
What is the 30-day demand letter?
Before filing, the law requires a written demand sent to the insurer at least thirty days ahead that describes the unfair conduct and the injury. It gives the insurer one chance to respond reasonably. If it ignores the demand or answers unreasonably where liability was clear, it opens itself to enhanced damages.
How much more can I recover if an insurer acted this way?
When the conduct is willful or knowing, or a demand is refused in bad faith, the damages can be doubled or tripled, and the insurer also pays your reasonable attorney fees and costs. The amount multiplied is the underlying judgment, so unfair handling of a serious claim can create very large exposure.
What evidence shows a claim was handled unfairly?
The insurer’s own claim file is often decisive: what it knew, when it knew it, and how it responded. Correspondence, the timing of offers and denials, and the absence of any real investigation all help show whether the company handled the claim reasonably or simply tried to pay as little as possible.
The adjuster keeps delaying. Does that count?
It can. Failing to acknowledge or act promptly on a claim, and failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time, are recognized unfair practices. Months of silence and repeated requests for documents you already sent, on a claim where liability is clear, are exactly the kind of delay the law targets.
Can I bring this if my injury case has not settled yet?
Often yes. The unfair-handling claim is separate from the underlying injury claim, and it turns on the insurer’s conduct rather than only the injury. In many cases the two proceed together, with the demand for relief laying out both the value of the claim and the way the insurer mishandled it.
What does it cost to pursue a case like this?
Nothing upfront. These cases are handled on a contingency fee, so you owe no attorney fee unless we recover, and the first consultation is free. Because the law also shifts attorney fees onto an insurer that acted unfairly, pursuing accountability does not have to come out of your recovery.
How long do I have to act?
Act promptly. Evidence of how a claim was handled is easiest to preserve while the file is active and memories are fresh, and both the underlying claim and the unfair-handling claim carry deadlines. The safest course is to have the handling reviewed early rather than after a file has been closed.
The insurer denied my claim. Do I have options?
Usually. A denial that was issued without a reasonable investigation, or that misrepresents what the policy covers, is the kind of conduct the law addresses. A review of the denial and the claim file can show whether the insurer had a legitimate basis or simply refused to pay what it owed.
What should I do before responding to a low offer?
Do not accept or reject it on the spot. Get a clear picture of what the claim is actually worth and how the insurer arrived at its figure. A short, free conversation first can keep a lowball from being mistaken for a fair result and preserve your leverage to demand more.
Results Disclaimer: Past case results, settlements, and verdicts mentioned on this website do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is unique and depends on its own facts and legal issues.