Municipal – Chapter 93A – MBTA

Listen to this article

Where the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has alleged that defendant insurance companies violated G.L.c. 93A, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be denied because the MBTA is a “person” entitled to sue under G.L.c. 93A, §9.

“I need not decide any of the factual disputes regarding Defendants’ conduct or basis therefore because the sole issue presented for decision is whether the MBTA, acting in its role as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, can assert a claim under G.L.c. 93A, §9. Because I conclude that governmental entities can assert such claims when they are not acting in trade or commerce but within their legislative mandate, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must be denied. …

“I conclude that the MBTA is a ‘person’ entitled to sue under G.L.c. 93A, §9 for two reasons. First, as a matter of statutory construction, the MBTA is a ‘person’ under the statute. Second, courts have held that governmental entities like the MBTA can bring suit under G.L.c. 93A, §§9 and 11. …

“Because the statute expressly includes in its definition of ‘person,’ other legal entities such as the MBTA, and because courts have expressly recognized that governmental entities like the MBTA are ‘person(s)’ entitled to bring suit under both c. 93A, §9 or, where appropriate, §11, I conclude that the MBTA is a person and may pursue its c. 93A, §9 claim here. …

“Finally, the public policy purposes of G.L.c. 93A also lead to the conclusion that there should be accountability under c. 93A for companies who act inequitably, unfairly, and in violation of 93A in their relationship with governmental units acting in pursuit of their public purpose. …”

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Zurich American Insurance Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-137-25) (13 pages) (Squires-Lee, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2284CV02344-BLS2) (September 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.