Brito v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.
This appeal by the plaintiff concerns the interpretation of G. L. c. 90, § 34M. The plaintiff, a pedestrian hit by an automobile, argues that that statute unconditionally requires the insurer of the automobile’s driver to pay all medical benefits within thirty days of the submission of the bills to the insurer. *35The defendant, whose contentions were upheld by a District Court judge and on appeal by the Appellate Division, argues that benefits are due and payable only upon reasonable and prompt substantiation of the claims. We agree that the statute entitled the insurer in this case to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Atlanta Casualty Co. v. FlewellenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- DiBassie v. AM. STANDARD INS. CO. OF WISCONSINCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1983
- Huntt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1987
- Neal v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Columbia Chiropractic Group, Inc. v. Trust InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Ortiz v. Examworks, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
- Chhoeun Ny v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
- Knight v. CNA InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2003
- Provenzano v. Arbella Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2007
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.