2026-09-10 · Massachusetts · Legislation

What happened. Massachusetts enacted a two-section insurance law that reaches directly into how a condominium association handles a large master-policy loss. Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2026, from S.785 (Sen. Joan B. Lovely), was approved on 7 August 2026.¹

It carries no emergency preamble and no effective-date section, so the constitutional 90-day default applies — which puts it in force in early November 2026. No official statement of the exact effective date has been published, and readers should not act on a specific day without checking.

Section 1: the clause is void

A new G.L. c. 175 §2C makes it unlawful for any company as defined in c. 175 §1 “and any non-admitted or surplus lines insurer” to include in a property and casualty policy any language, form or endorsement prohibiting an insured from

“hiring, retaining, engaging, utilizing, consulting or contracting with a public insurance adjuster… as a condition to recovery under such policy.”

Such a clause “shall be unenforceable and shall be excised from the policy of insurance,” with the rest of the policy unaffected. It is a severance rule, not a voiding of the whole contract.

Section 2: it becomes an unfair claim settlement practice

Section 2 adds a new subclause (o) to G.L. c. 176D §3, clause (9), making inclusion of such a provision an unfair claim settlement practice. That is the enforcement hook: c. 176D violations feed c. 93A liability, which in Massachusetts carries multiple damages and attorney's fees.

Why surplus lines matters here

The express inclusion of non-admitted and surplus lines insurers is the provision most relevant to condominiums. High-value, coastal and hard-to-place condominium master policies are frequently written on the surplus lines market, which is where restrictive endorsement language is most likely to appear.

1. Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2026, An Act further regulating insurance claims (session law text) ↩
2. S.785, 194th General Court — sponsor, history and enactment ↩
3. M.G.L. c. 176D, unfair methods of competition and unfair claim settlement practices ↩