Most people injured in an accident assume the insurance company on the other side will, eventually, do the right thing, investigate fairly, acknowledge clear liability, and pay a reasonable amount. When an insurer instead drags out the process for months, ignores obvious liability, denies a claim without a real investigation, or offers pennies on the dollar to force you to sue, it is not just frustrating, it may be illegal. Massachusetts gives injured people and policyholders a powerful weapon against that conduct: a bad faith insurance claim under Chapter 93A and Chapter 176D. This is a separate legal claim against the insurance company itself, distinct from the underlying injury claim, and it can dramatically change the balance of power with an insurer that is not playing fair.
A bad faith insurance claim is one of the most important and least understood tools in Massachusetts injury practice. Unlike simply negotiating harder with an adjuster, it invokes specific statutes that make unfair claim-settlement practices unlawful and, critically, allow a court to double or triple the damages and award attorney’s fees when an insurer’s conduct crosses the line. Understanding when insurer behavior becomes a violation, and how the statutory remedy works, is what turns an injured person from a frustrated claimant into someone the insurer has real reason to fear. This is how these claims work in Massachusetts.
The stakes are significant because insurers know most claimants will not push back, and the threat of multiplied damages and fees is often what finally moves a carrier that has been stalling or lowballing. That is exactly why recognizing an unfair-claim-practices violation, and knowing how to invoke the statute, matters so much to anyone facing an insurance company that will not deal fairly.
How Chapter 93A and 176D create a bad faith insurance claim
Two statutes work together to give Massachusetts injured people a remedy against unfair insurers, one defines the wrongful conduct, the other provides the private cause of action and the enhanced damages.
Chapter 176D and unfair claim settlement practices
The first statute, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 176D, section 3, defines what counts as an unfair claim settlement practice in the insurance business. Its clause (9) lists specific prohibited acts, including misrepresenting policy provisions or the facts relating to coverage; failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly on claim communications; failing to adopt reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims; refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation; failing to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim in which liability has become reasonably clear; and compelling an insured or claimant to sue by offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered. This list is the yardstick against which an insurer’s conduct is measured. When a carrier commits one of these acts, it has engaged in an unfair claim settlement practice, and that is the foundation of a bad faith insurance claim.
Chapter 93A and the private right to sue
Chapter 176D by itself is a regulatory statute, but it connects to a powerful remedy through the Commonwealth’s consumer-protection law. Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, section 9, any person whose rights are affected by another person violating clause (9) of section 3 of chapter 176D may bring a civil action, along with anyone injured by an unfair or deceptive act made unlawful by Chapter 93A generally. In other words, 93A gives the injured person the right to actually sue the insurer for its unfair claim-settlement conduct, and to seek the statute’s enhanced remedies. It is the combination that gives the doctrine its force: 176D defines the misconduct, and 93A lets the injured person take the insurer to court over it and recover multiplied damages and fees.
A separate claim against the insurer itself
The key conceptual point is that a bad faith insurance claim is a separate cause of action against the insurance company, distinct from the underlying injury claim. The underlying case, the car crash, the slip and fall, is about the negligence of the person who hurt you. The 93A/176D claim is about the insurer’s own misconduct in handling the claim. They are different wrongs with different defendants and different remedies, and an injured person can have a strong bad faith claim against an insurer even in a case where the underlying liability was never seriously in doubt, indeed, especially there, because that is precisely when an insurer’s refusal to settle promptly and fairly becomes unlawful. Recognizing that the insurer’s conduct is itself actionable is the first step to holding it accountable.
When lowballing, delay, or denial crosses the line
Not every hard-nosed negotiation is a violation. The statute targets specific conduct, and understanding where aggressive claims-handling becomes unlawful is the heart of these cases.
The reasonably clear liability trigger
The most important of the prohibited practices is the failure to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement once liability has become reasonably clear. This is the provision insurers most often violate. When the facts and the law make it reasonably clear that the insured is liable, that a reasonable person reviewing the situation would conclude the insured was at fault, the insurer has a duty to make a prompt and fair settlement offer. An insurer that instead sits on a claim, denies clear liability, or refuses to make a reasonable offer where fault is obvious has crossed the line. The reasonably clear standard is the trigger, and much of the litigation in these cases is about whether, and when, liability became reasonably clear, because that is the moment the insurer’s duty to deal fairly attached.
Delay, inadequate investigation, and unexplained denial
Several other forms of insurer conduct independently violate the statute. Unreasonable delay, failing to acknowledge or act promptly on claim communications, is a violation. So is refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, denying first and investigating never. So is failing to provide a prompt, reasonable explanation, grounded in the policy and the facts, for a denial or a lowball offer. Each of these is a distinct prohibited practice, and a carrier that engages in them exposes itself to a bad faith claim regardless of how it characterizes its conduct. The point of the statute is that an insurer cannot use delay, willful blindness, or silence as a strategy to wear a claimant down.
Lowball offers that force litigation
The statute specifically targets the tactic of offering substantially less than a claim is worth in order to compel the claimant to sue. When an insurer, facing reasonably clear liability, offers a fraction of the claim’s value to force the injured person into litigation, and the claimant ultimately recovers far more, that gap is itself evidence of an unfair claim settlement practice. This provision recognizes a reality injured people know well: insurers sometimes bet that a claimant will accept a lowball rather than fight. The statute turns that bet against the insurer, because the very act of forcing litigation through an unreasonably low offer can support a bad faith claim and the multiplied damages that come with it.
The demand letter and double-to-treble damages
What makes a bad faith insurance claim so powerful is its remedy, but accessing that remedy requires following a specific procedure that begins with a demand letter.
The 30-day demand-for-relief requirement
Before filing most 93A claims, the statute requires a written demand for relief. Under chapter 93A, section 9, at least thirty days before bringing suit, the claimant must mail or deliver a written demand that identifies the claimant and reasonably describes the unfair or deceptive act and the injury suffered. This demand letter is a critical, and mandatory, step: it gives the insurer thirty days to respond with a reasonable written settlement offer, and it frames the claim that follows. The letter matters enormously, because if the insurer makes a reasonable tender in response, that can limit the claimant’s recovery, while if the insurer ignores the demand or responds inadequately in the face of a clear violation, it exposes itself to the full weight of the statute. Crafting a strong, well-supported demand letter is therefore one of the most important tasks in a bad faith case.
How damages are doubled or trebled, plus attorney’s fees
The remedy is what insurers fear. Under chapter 93A, section 9, if the court finds a violation, the claimant recovers actual damages, and if the court finds that the insurer’s conduct was a willful or knowing violation, or that its refusal to grant relief in response to the demand was made in bad faith with knowledge or reason to know it violated the law, the court awards up to three, but not less than two, times the damages. In plain terms, the damages can be doubled or tripled. On top of that, the statute requires the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a claimant who proves a violation. The combination is formidable: an insurer that unfairly denies or lowballs a clear claim risks paying two or three times the value plus the claimant’s legal fees. This is why a credible 93A/176D claim so often changes an insurer’s behavior, the downside of continued bad faith becomes far greater than the cost of simply paying the claim fairly.
93A after a car crash when the at-fault carrier will not pay
One of the most common and valuable applications of the doctrine is against the at-fault driver’s insurer after a car crash, and it is important to distinguish this from the ordinary back-and-forth of dealing with an adjuster.
The injured person’s rights against the at-fault carrier
After a crash where the other driver was clearly at fault, that driver’s insurer has obligations under the unfair-claim-practices statute, and an injured third party, not just the insurer’s own policyholder, can invoke them. When the at-fault carrier drags out a clear-liability claim, denies fault the evidence plainly establishes, refuses to investigate, or offers far less than the claim is worth to force a lawsuit, it may be committing exactly the violations 176D and 93A address. The injured person can hold that carrier accountable through a bad faith claim, seeking the multiplied damages and fees the statute provides. This is a powerful counter to the familiar experience of an at-fault insurer that stonewalls a plainly valid claim, and it is one of the most effective ways to break a stalemate with a carrier that will not pay.
How this differs from ordinary dealings with an adjuster
It is important to distinguish a bad faith claim from the routine work of negotiating with an insurance adjuster, which our guidance on dealing with insurance companies addresses. Ordinary claim handling, exchanging information, negotiating value, disagreeing about the worth of a claim, is not by itself a violation; insurers are entitled to evaluate and negotiate. A bad faith claim arises only when the insurer’s conduct crosses into the specific prohibited practices, unreasonable delay, denial without investigation, refusal to settle a reasonably clear claim, a lowball designed to force litigation. The difference is not merely that the insurer offered less than the claimant wanted; it is that the insurer handled the claim unfairly in one of the ways the statute forbids. Knowing where the line falls, when a frustrating negotiation has become an actionable violation, is exactly what separates a routine claim from a bad faith case, and it is where experienced judgment matters most.
How a Boston injury lawyer helps
Bad faith insurance cases reward experienced representation because the line between hard negotiation and an unlawful practice is a matter of judgment and proof, and because the statutory procedure has to be followed precisely. A lawyer evaluates whether the insurer’s conduct fits one of the prohibited practices, whether liability was reasonably clear and the insurer failed to settle, whether it denied without investigating, whether it lowballed to force suit, and documents the claims-handling history that proves it. Where a violation exists, the lawyer drafts the demand letter that the statute requires and that frames the case, giving the insurer its thirty days and its chance to cure, and preserving the claimant’s right to multiplied damages and fees if the insurer does not. That process frequently produces a fair resolution without trial, precisely because a well-founded 93A/176D claim confronts the insurer with the real risk of paying double or triple damages plus the claimant’s attorney’s fees.
Because the remedy is so substantial and the procedure so specific, the value of knowledgeable handling is high. An injured person who simply keeps arguing with an adjuster leaves this leverage unused; one who recognizes and properly invokes a bad faith claim changes the insurer’s calculus entirely.
Larson Law is based in Boston and helps injured people and policyholders hold insurers accountable across the Commonwealth, in Cambridge, Quincy, and beyond. Because these disputes so often arise when an at-fault or uninsured driver’s coverage is in play, because insurer conduct intersects with the liens and settlement mechanics of resolving a claim, and because knowing when to escalate from negotiation to a formal bad faith claim is central, these issues connect directly across our practice. Our Boston personal injury attorneys know how to tell an unfair claim practice from ordinary negotiation and how to use the statute’s leverage. These cases are handled on contingency, so there is no fee unless there is a recovery, and a first conversation costs nothing. If an insurer is delaying, denying, or lowballing a clear claim, reach out or call 508-888-8888 to find out whether you have a bad faith insurance claim.
Common bad faith scenarios and what decides them
Because these claims turn on specific insurer conduct, it helps to see how the most common situations are evaluated under the statute.
The clear-liability claim the insurer will not pay
Fault is obvious, a rear-end collision, a driver who ran a red light, yet the at-fault carrier refuses to make a fair offer or denies the claim outright. This is the paradigm violation of the reasonably-clear-liability provision, and the insurer’s refusal to settle promptly and fairly can support a bad faith claim with multiplied damages. The central proof is that liability was reasonably clear and the insurer nonetheless failed to settle.
The stall and the silence
The insurer simply goes quiet, failing to acknowledge communications, dragging out the process for months, or refusing to explain its position. Unreasonable delay and failure to act promptly are themselves prohibited practices, and a documented history of the insurer’s silence and inaction can establish a violation independent of the ultimate offer.
The deny-first, investigate-never claim
The insurer denies the claim without conducting any meaningful investigation of the available facts. Refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation is a distinct violation, and evidence that the carrier reached its denial without gathering readily available information is powerful proof of an unfair practice.
The lowball to force a lawsuit
Facing clear liability and a serious injury, the insurer offers a small fraction of the claim’s value, betting the claimant will not sue. When the claimant ultimately recovers far more, the gap between the offer and the recovery is itself evidence that the insurer used a lowball to compel litigation, a practice the statute specifically forbids and that can trigger the enhanced remedy.
Across these scenarios, the constant is that a bad faith insurance claim depends on documented insurer misconduct measured against the statute’s specific prohibited practices, not merely on dissatisfaction with an offer. Building that record is what turns an insurer’s unfair conduct into an actionable claim.
What the multiplied damages actually apply to
One of the most consequential and misunderstood features of a bad faith insurance claim is what, exactly, gets doubled or tripled, because the answer can make the remedy far larger than injured people expect.
The measure of damages can be substantial
When a court finds a willful or knowing violation, or a bad-faith refusal to grant relief on demand, the enhanced remedy multiplies the claimant’s damages, and depending on the circumstances that base can include the value of the underlying claim the insurer unfairly refused to pay. That is what makes these claims so powerful: an insurer that stonewalls a serious injury claim is not merely risking the value of the claim, it is risking a multiple of it. The precise measure of damages in any given case depends on the facts and the nature of the violation, but the principle is that the statute is designed to make bad faith expensive, so expensive that fair dealing becomes the rational choice for the insurer. This is why even the credible threat of a well-documented 93A claim so often produces movement from a carrier that had been immovable.
Attorney’s fees shift the economics
Equally important is the fee-shifting provision. In an ordinary injury claim, the injured person bears their own legal costs out of the recovery; in a successful 93A claim, the statute requires the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs on top of the damages. This changes the economics of pursuing an insurer, because the claimant is not forced to trade away part of the recovery to vindicate the wrong. It also removes one of the insurer’s traditional advantages, the assumption that fighting will cost the claimant more than it is worth. When fees shift to the insurer, that calculation flips.
Why insurers respond to a credible claim
Taken together, the multiplier and the fee award explain why a legitimate bad faith claim is such effective leverage. An insurer weighing whether to continue denying or lowballing a clear claim has to reckon with the possibility of paying two or three times the value plus the claimant’s legal fees, and with the reputational and institutional consequences of a bad faith finding. For many carriers, that risk is decisive. The claimant who understands and can credibly invoke the statute is negotiating from a position of real strength, rather than simply hoping the adjuster will relent. That shift in leverage is the practical heart of what these statutes provide.
What to do when an insurer is treating you unfairly
Because a bad faith claim depends on a documented record of the insurer’s conduct measured against the statute, the steps an injured person takes while the claim is being handled can determine whether a violation can later be proven. Several of them matter more than people realize.
First, keep a careful record of every interaction with the insurer: the dates of calls and letters, what was said, what was requested, what the insurer did and did not do, and how long it took. A bad faith claim is built on the claims-handling history, and the paper trail of delay, non-response, or shifting explanations is often the most persuasive proof of an unfair practice. Put important communications in writing where you can, and keep copies of everything the insurer sends.
Second, preserve the evidence that liability was reasonably clear, the police report, photographs, witness information, and the documentation of your injuries and losses. The reasonably-clear-liability trigger is central to the most common violation, so the clearer the record that fault was obvious, the stronger the argument that the insurer’s failure to settle was unlawful rather than a good-faith dispute. The same evidence that proves the underlying claim also helps establish that the insurer had no legitimate reason to withhold a fair settlement.
Third, be cautious about accepting an early, low offer or signing anything without understanding it. Insurers sometimes make a quick lowball precisely because they are counting on the claimant not recognizing the claim’s true value or the leverage the statute provides. Understanding what a claim is actually worth, and whether the insurer’s conduct has crossed into an unfair practice, is difficult to do alone, which is why seeking legal advice is valuable before a case hardens into an accepted settlement that cannot be undone.
Finally, act within the applicable time limits. Chapter 93A claims are subject to a statute of limitations, and the underlying injury claim has its own deadline, so waiting too long can forfeit both the injury claim and the bad faith claim built on the insurer’s handling of it. A lawyer can evaluate the claims-handling record, determine whether a violation has occurred, prepare the required demand letter, and preserve the deadlines, all while the evidence of the insurer’s conduct is still fresh. A first consultation costs nothing, and when an insurer is delaying, denying, or lowballing a clear claim, the value of understanding your rights early, before the leverage is lost, is considerable.
Disclaimer: Statute of limitations rules can vary significantly by state, jurisdiction, and the specific type of claim. The information above is general in nature. Please consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.
None of this guarantees that every frustrating claim is a bad faith case; many hard negotiations are lawful. But documenting the insurer’s conduct and getting a knowledgeable evaluation ensures that when a carrier has crossed the line, the record to prove it, and the leverage the statute provides, are there to be used rather than lost.
Frequently asked questions
What is a bad faith insurance claim in Massachusetts?
It is a legal claim against an insurance company for handling a claim unfairly, brought under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 176D and chapter 93A. Chapter 176D, section 3(9) defines unfair claim settlement practices, such as failing to settle a claim promptly and fairly once liability is reasonably clear, refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation, or lowballing to force a lawsuit, and chapter 93A, section 9 lets the affected person sue the insurer over that conduct and seek doubled or tripled damages plus attorney’s fees. It is a separate claim from the underlying injury case.
When does an insurer’s lowball or delay become illegal?
When it crosses into one of the specific practices the statute prohibits. The most common is failing to make a prompt, fair settlement once liability has become reasonably clear, when a reasonable person reviewing the facts and law would conclude the insured was at fault. Unreasonable delay, refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation, failing to explain a denial, and offering substantially less than a claim is worth to force litigation are also violations. Ordinary negotiation and disagreement about value are not, by themselves, illegal; it is the unfair handling that makes the difference.
How much can I recover in a bad faith insurance claim?
Potentially far more than the underlying claim alone. Under chapter 93A, section 9, you recover your actual damages, and if the court finds the insurer’s violation was willful or knowing, or that it refused to grant relief in bad faith with knowledge it violated the law, the court awards up to three, but not less than two, times the damages, so double or triple. The statute also requires the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This enhanced remedy is what gives these claims their leverage.
What is the demand letter, and do I need one?
Yes, in most cases it is required. Chapter 93A, section 9 requires that, at least thirty days before filing suit, you mail or deliver a written demand for relief that identifies you and reasonably describes the unfair or deceptive act and the injury you suffered. The insurer then has thirty days to respond with a reasonable settlement offer. The demand letter is both a mandatory step and a strategic one, a strong, well-supported demand frames the claim and preserves your right to multiplied damages if the insurer fails to respond reasonably.
Can I bring a 93A claim against the at-fault driver’s insurer after a crash?
Yes. After a crash where the other driver was clearly at fault, that driver’s insurer has duties under the unfair-claim-practices statute, and as an injured third party you can invoke them. If the at-fault carrier denies clear liability, stalls, refuses to investigate, or lowballs to force a lawsuit, you may have a bad faith claim against that insurer for doubled or tripled damages and fees. This is different from ordinary negotiation with an adjuster, it applies only when the insurer’s conduct crosses into the statute’s prohibited practices.
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.