What Happens If You’re Hit by an Uninsured Driver in Boston?

Getting hit by an uninsured driver in Boston – or one who doesn’t carry enough coverage – feels like being wronged twice. First by the crash, then by the realization that the usual path to compensation may not be available. There is no liability policy to claim against. There may not even be a driver you can identify. So what happens next?

The short answer is that Massachusetts law anticipated this problem and built a specific protection into every auto insurance policy in the state. But how that protection works, what it covers, and what it does not cover involves distinctions that most people do not discover until they are already in the middle of a claim.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage – What the Law Requires

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 175, Section 113L, every auto insurance policy issued or delivered in Massachusetts must include uninsured motorist coverage. This is not optional. It is a mandatory component of every policy sold in the state, and it applies regardless of whether the policyholder knew it was there.

Uninsured motorist coverage – UM coverage – exists to protect you when the driver who caused your injuries either has no liability insurance at all, or when the driver who hit you fled the scene and cannot be identified. The statute specifically includes hit-and-run vehicles within the definition of uninsured motor vehicles for coverage purposes. It also covers a situation that is easy to overlook: where the at-fault driver’s insurer is unable to pay because the insurer itself has become insolvent. In all of these scenarios, your own UM coverage steps into the position that the at-fault driver’s liability insurance would otherwise have occupied.

The coverage applies to bodily injury – injuries to you, your passengers, and resident relatives under the policy. It is not primarily designed to cover vehicle damage, and the extent of any property coverage depends on the specific policy terms.

Underinsured Motorist Coverage – A Different Problem, a Different Tool

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage address two different situations, and it matters to understand the distinction.

UM coverage responds when the at-fault driver has no insurance at all, or when they cannot be identified. Underinsured motorist coverage – UIM coverage – responds when the at-fault driver has insurance, but their policy limits are not sufficient to fully compensate you for your injuries. If the other driver’s liability coverage is exhausted but your damages exceed what that policy can pay, UIM coverage can bridge the gap between what the at-fault driver’s insurer pays and the actual value of your losses – up to the limits of your own UIM policy.

There is a critical distinction here that many people do not know: unlike UM coverage, UIM coverage is not mandatory in Massachusetts. Drivers can choose to purchase it – and many do – but it is not required by statute. Whether you have UIM coverage and what the limits are is entirely a function of the policy you purchased. You can only use UIM coverage when your own UIM limits are higher than the bodily injury limits of the at-fault driver’s policy. If your UIM limits equal the other driver’s liability limits, UIM coverage does not come into play.

Given that the at-fault driver in any accident may be carrying only the state’s minimum required liability coverage, UIM coverage is a meaningful protection for anyone who carries it.

When Your Own Insurer Is Not on Your Side

Here is the reality of a UM or UIM claim that catches many people off guard: you are making a claim against your own insurance company.

In a standard liability claim, you are pursuing the other driver’s insurer. Your own insurer is not a party to that process. In a UM or UIM claim, that relationship inverts. Your insurer is the one being asked to pay – and that changes how they respond. The insurer that otherwise handles your renewals and collision claims is now in the position of a claims-paying defendant with a financial interest in minimizing what it pays out.

Massachusetts courts and legal commentators have consistently recognized that UM and UIM claims put insurers in an adversarial position relative to their own policyholders. Your insurer will investigate the claim, evaluate fault, assess the extent of your injuries, and determine what it believes the claim is worth – just as a third-party insurer would. The same concerns about early settlement offers, recorded statements, and broad medical authorizations apply here. The insurer being your own does not make it neutral.

How a UM Claim Works in Practice

When you are hit by an uninsured or unidentified driver, the process begins with your own insurer. You are required under your policy’s cooperation clause to report the accident promptly and to assist in the investigation. Failing to provide timely notice can create coverage complications – this is a policy requirement, not a discretionary step.

From there, your insurer investigates the claim much as it would a standard liability claim. It will examine the evidence of the accident, evaluate the other driver’s insurance status, assess your injuries and damages, and determine what it believes is owed under the UM coverage. That determination may or may not reflect the actual value of your claim – and this is where legal representation becomes particularly significant.

For UIM claims, there is an additional procedural step that is often overlooked and can have serious consequences if missed. Before settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer, you should notify your own UIM carrier and obtain permission to settle. This is because, by settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer, you are accepting their policy limits – and your own insurer has a right to be involved in that process before its subrogation rights are affected. Settling with the at-fault driver without notifying your UIM carrier can jeopardize your UIM claim. This is a procedural requirement that needs to be handled with care.

UM and UIM Claims Go to Arbitration – Not Court

This is one of the most practically significant distinctions between UM/UIM claims and standard personal injury lawsuits, and it is one that most people do not know until they are already in a dispute.

Under Massachusetts law and the standard Massachusetts auto insurance policy, disputes between a claimant and their insurer over UM and UIM claims are resolved through arbitration – not through the court system. Arbitration is a binding legal process in which a neutral third party, or panel, reviews the evidence and arguments from both sides and renders a decision. That decision is generally final, with very limited grounds for appeal, including fraud or clear error of law.

What this means in practice is that the litigation path available in a standard personal injury case – filing suit in Superior Court, full discovery, jury trial – is not the mechanism for resolving a contested UM or UIM claim. The arbitration process is different in structure, and how it is navigated – including what evidence is presented and how the claim is framed – is a specialized area. An attorney who handles UM and UIM claims understands the arbitration process and can represent the claimant’s interests effectively within it.

The Statute of Limitations – Different Rules Apply

The standard three-year statute of limitations under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 260, Section 2A applies to personal injury tort claims against a third party. UM and UIM claims are different in legal character.

UM and UIM claims are contract claims – they arise under your insurance policy, not under a tort theory against the at-fault driver. As contract claims, they are governed by the six-year statute of limitations that applies to written contracts in Massachusetts. This is a materially longer window than the tort limitations period, and it reflects the nature of the coverage as a contractual obligation between you and your insurer.

That said, the longer limitations period does not mean delay is harmless. Policy cooperation clauses typically require prompt reporting. Evidence deteriorates with time. And the arbitration process itself benefits from a well-developed factual record assembled as close to the accident as possible.

No Stacking Across Multiple Policies

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 175, Section 113L(5) provides that UM coverage limits cannot be stacked – that is, the coverage limits from two or more policies, or from two or more vehicles on the same policy, cannot be added together to increase the total available coverage. The limits of the single applicable policy are the ceiling.

For a claimant who is not the named insured but is covered as a household member under a resident relative’s policy, the statute specifies that recovery is available only from the policy with the highest UM limits – not from a combination of policies. Where two policies offer the same limits, a pro rata contribution applies.

This is relevant in situations where multiple household members have separate policies, or where someone is injured while riding in a vehicle other than their own. Which policy applies, and at what limits, depends on the specific circumstances and requires careful analysis.

Legal Options Beyond UM and UIM Coverage

UM and UIM coverage is the primary mechanism for recovering compensation when the at-fault driver is uninsured or underinsured. But it is not always the only avenue worth exploring.

If the at-fault driver was operating a vehicle owned by someone else – an employer, a family member, a business – that owner may carry their own liability coverage, which could be accessible depending on the circumstances. If the driver was working at the time, the employer’s commercial policy may apply, and commercial policies often carry significantly higher limits than personal auto policies.

Where the accident involved a defective road condition, failed traffic signal, or other hazard attributable to a government entity, a separate claim under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act may be available – subject to the strict notice requirements and deadlines that apply to government claims. A private contractor responsible for construction or maintenance of the road may also carry independent liability.

In cases involving vehicle defects that contributed to the severity of the crash, product liability against the vehicle manufacturer or component supplier is a possible avenue, independent of the at-fault driver’s insurance status.

None of these paths are guaranteed to be available in any given case. What is available depends entirely on the facts. But the reflex assumption that an uninsured driver means a dead end is not accurate – the full picture of potential coverage and liability is worth examining before that conclusion is reached.

If you were hit by an uninsured or underinsured driver in Boston and want to understand what your coverage may allow, contact Larson Law Boston to go over the specifics of your situation with an attorney who handles these claims.

FAQs