Source: https://insurancecoveragemassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/04/
Timestamp: 2018-12-15 06:30:00
Document Index: 787073560

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 177', '§ 2', '§ 177', '§ 7', '§ 177', '§ 7', '§ 177', '§ 177']

Insurance Coverage Law in Massachusetts: April 2010
Massachusetts Appeals Court holds that only fine under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 s. 177 applies where insurance agency employed unlicensed broker
I have been discussing Anawan Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Division of Ins., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 447 (2010), in which an insurance agency was accused of employing an unlicensed broker.
In paying the unlicensed broker, the insurance agency had violated both Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 § 177, the statute prohibiting payment to unlicensed brokers, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 2, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance.
Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 § 177 was punishable by a fine (prior to the inapplicable amendment to the statute) of "not less than twenty nor more than two hundred dollars."
Pursuant to § 7 of ch. 176D, violation of ch. 176D is punishable by a fine of "not more than one thousand dollars for each and every act or practice."
The court held that only the fine under § 177 could be assessed, because § 7 of ch. 176D is a statute of general application to all unfair practices in the insurance industry, but § 177 of ch. 175 applies specifically to transactions with unlicensed brokers. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the more specific statute must govern.
Posted by Nina Kallen at 7:08 AM No comments:
Labels: broker, brokers, statutory interpretation specific statute, unlicensed brokers
Massachusetts Appeals Court holds that amendment to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 s. 177 does not apply retroactively
I have been discussing Anawan Ins. Agency v. Division of Ins., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 447 (2010), in which an insurance agency was accused of employing an unlicensed broker.
The applicable statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 177, which prohibits payments to unlicensed brokers, was amended in 2002 by inserting the word "knowingly" in the sentence, "Whoever knowingly violates a provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500."
The court noted that an amendment to a statute applies retroactively where the amendment is a clarification or a fine-tuning of the earlier provision. It held that the word "knowingly" was not a clarification or fine-tuning and would not apply retroactively.
Labels: amendments to statutes, broker, brokers, retroactive statutory amendments, statututory amendments retroactive, unlicensed brokers