Over the last ten years, states have been moving, albeit slowly, to deregulate automobile insurance.  Supporters of deregulation often cite the high premiums, distorted rates and lack of choices that drivers experience under a regulated system.  They argue that in states that rely on markets to set rates, neither prices nor profits are excessive. 

A Massachusetts court recently ruled that a “good health” requirement in a life insurance policy must be interpreted based upon what the contracting parties knew at the time the policy was issued (a subjective test), not based upon what in fact turned out to be true based on discoveries made at a later date (an objective test). 

On July 12, 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, where a vehicle causing an accident is owned by a governmental entity and is insured by an insolvent insurer, the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund is not obligated to compensate the injured individual unless and until the injured individual’s own uninsured motor vehicle coverage has been exhausted.