Legal Opinion
Boehm v. Premier Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 12, 2006PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C.J.
We consider whether G. L. c. 90, § 34M, which authorizes a medical provider to commence an action in contract against an insurer to recover unpaid benefits for treatment provided to an insured, also confers the right to- a jury trial. We conclude that it does.
Background. Ian Boehm, a chiropractor, commenced an action in the District Court to recover from The Premier Insurance Company (Premier) personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for medical services rendered after Premier’s insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Premier claimed a trial by jury. Boehm moved to strike the jury…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bronstein v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Gurley v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Dalis v. Buyer Advertising, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Farnham v. Lenox Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham GroupMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
- MacLaurin v. City of HolyokeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Boston Regional Physical Therapy, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
- Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, Inc. v. Arbella Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Ferreira v. CharlandMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2023
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.