State RegulationsMA specificDifficulty 2/5
A Massachusetts insurer receives a claim, then lets it sit for months without opening an investigation or communicating with the claimant. Under M.G.L. c. 176D, § 3(9), the insurer's inaction most directly constitutes:
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why A is correct
M.G.L. c. 176D, § 3(9) includes, among the unfair claims settlement practices, failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims. An insurer that leaves a claim untouched for months has abandoned prompt investigation entirely, which is the core of the practice the Massachusetts Division of Insurance polices through the catalogue. The harm is the delay and silence themselves, independent of any eventual payment decision.
Why the other options are wrong
- B) Boycott, coercion, and intimidation under M.G.L. c. 176D, § 3(4) concerns forcing parties' conduct in the market, not slow claim handling.
- C) False advertising under M.G.L. c. 176D, § 3(2) concerns misleading sales-directed statements, and silence on a claim is not advertising.
- D) The complaint record duty at M.G.L. c. 176D, § 3(10) concerns records of complaints received; an idle claim is not a missing-record violation.
Memory hook
A claim in limbo is a § 3(9) violation — no standards, no investigation, no excuse.