DANIEL CUMMINGS'S CASE

KANTROWITZ, J. The issue before us is whether an insurer who, pursuant to G. L. c. 152, s. 65A, has been designated to issue a workers' compensation insurance policy to an employer as an assigned risk, may unilaterally rescind, or otherwise terminate, the policy issued upon realizing that the initial premium fee has not been paid, without complying with the procedures set forth in G. L. c. 152, s. 65B. We conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, it may not.

On March 26, 1996, Daniel Cummings, an employee of Demolition Specialists, Inc. (Demolition Specialists), was injured on a construction job. There is no dispute that his injury is covered under the workers' compensation act. Less clear is

Page 445

the party responsible for his payments: AIU Insurance Company (AIU) [Note 1], Eastern Casualty Insurance Company (Eastern) [Note 2], Workers' Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund) [Note 3] or Demolition Specialists [Note 4].

Facts. On February 1, 1996, Jeffrey Kukene, president of Demolition Specialists, completed an application for insurance through the assigned risk pool [Note 5]. Along with his application, he tendered a check for $9,010, the initial premium amount, to the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau (Rating Bureau).

On February 21, 1996, the Rating Bureau issued a notice of assignment stating that Eastern was the assigned carrier for Demolition Specialists effective February 10, 1996, and that a policy had been issued. Also on February 21, 1996, the Rating Bureau forwarded Demolition Specialists' check for the premium to Eastern which Eastern deposited. On March 6, 1996, the check was returned to Eastern due to insufficient funds.

Eastern notified Demolition Specialists by letter dated March

Page 446

12, 1996, that the check had been returned marked insufficient funds. In the letter, Eastern informed Demolition Specialists that "the notice of assignment had been rescinded and that no coverage had been provided." Eastern also advised Demolition Specialists to submit a new application for insurance to the Rating Bureau [Note 6].

Demolition Specialists received Eastern's letter on March 13, 1996, and promptly sent a new application to the Rating Bureau accompanied by a cashier's check for the premium due. A new notice of assignment was issued on April 23, 1996, indicating that Demolition Specialists was again covered by Eastern, effective March 28, 1996. The accident involving Cummings occurred two days prior to the effective date of this new policy. Eastern deposited the cashier's check on May 3, 1996..

An administrative judge of the Department of Industrial Accidents (department), concluding that the policy had issued on February 10, 1996, found that Eastern had provided coverage for Cummings's claim, and that it had not properly terminated the policy as of the date of Cummings's injury, as it had failed to notify the Rating Bureau of its rescission until April of 1996. The reviewing board summarily affirmed the administrative judge's decision. Eastern appealed. We affirm.

Background. The purpose of G. L. c. 152 is to ensure that financial assistance is made readily and speedily available to injured employees. See Brown v. Leighton, 385 Mass. 757 , 761 (1982). As a necessary corollary, it is essential that the Rating Bureau know, with as much accuracy as possible, who is insured. Frost v. David C. Wells Ins. Agency, Inc., 14 Mass. App. Ct. 305 , 308 (1982).

In cases where an employer is unable to obtain insurance on its own, it may apply to the commissioner of insurance. G.L.

Page 447

c. 152, s. 65A [Note 7]. The commissioner will then assign an insurance carrier, from the assigned risk pool, to the employer if all the requirements are met. Ibid. This process is administered by the Rating Bureau. The risks taken by the insurance carriers for providing insurance to these high-risk employers is distributed equitably among the insurers. Ibid. If the insurer wishes to cancel or otherwise terminate a policy issued under G. L. c. 152, s. 65A, it must provide written notice to the Rating Bureau and the insured employer of its intention. G. L. c. 152, s. 65B. The termination is effective unless the employer files objections within ten days after receipt of the notice. See ibid; Armstrong's Case, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 693 , 696 (1999).

Discussion. Had Demolition Specialists' initial check cleared, there would be no question as to the liability of Eastern. However, since the check was returned for insufficient funds on March 6, Eastern contends that a condition precedent (i.e., payment) for issuing the policy was not met and, thus, no policy was in effect on the date of the employee's injury. Eastern bases its argument on the common law doctrine of rescission [Note 8] and on the language in G.L. c. 152, s. 65A, which provides that "the commissioner shall designate an insurer who shall forthwith, upon the receipt of the payment for the premium therefore, issue to such employer a policy of insurance" (emphasis added).

Page 448

The language in G. L. c. 152, s. 65A, upon which Eastern relies, is difficult to rationalize with the actual method by which assigned risk policies are issued. Coverage is bound as of the date the notice of assignment states the policy was issued, irrespective of when the premium funds are actually in the insurer's hands [Note 9]. See note 11, infra. This practice apparently has evolved in light of the necessity of ensuring that coverage is provided for injured employees [Note 10] and the time it may take for a check to clear. Indeed, Eastern's Director of Underwriting testified, and acknowledged, that this is the manner in which coverage is obtained [Note 11]. We therefore are constrained to rule that a policy was issued by Eastern effective as of February 10, 1996.

We now turn to the question whether Eastern properly canceled or otherwise terminated the policy. See G. L. c. 152, s. 65B [Note 12]. We conclude that it did not.

In Armstrong's Case, the insurer issued a workers' compensa-

Page 449

tion assigned risk policy to the employer for the period covering May 13, 1988, to May 13, 1989. On November 14, 1988, the insurer mailed the employer a letter indicating that the policy would be canceled in two weeks unless a premium payment was made. When the payment was not forthcoming, the insurer canceled the policy. The cancellation was held to be ineffective in that the insurer failed to fully comply with the notice requirements of s. 65B by not sending a copy of the notice to the department [Note 13]. 47 Mass. App. Ct. at 696.

A similar result was reached in Frost, where the workers' compensation policy expired by its own terms. "On September 24, 1975, [the insurer] issued a workers' compensation insurance policy for a period of nine months and, on November 17, sent written notice of that fact to the [department], pursuant to G. L. c. 152, s. 63 [Note 14]. The notice stated that the policy was issued for a period of nine months [and expired in June, 1976]. No other notice was sent to the [department by the insurer]." 14 Mass. App. Ct. at 306-307. This court rejected the assertion that the November 17 letter satisfied the notice requirements of the statute. We held that where the insurer failed to comply with the statutory requirements of termination, coverage continued [Note 15]. "If [the insurer's] contention were correct, not only would the [department's] task [to ensure coverage by employers] be made

Page 450

more onerous by requiring it to keep a file of the dates of expiration of all employers' policies, but also the [department] would be unable to ascertain from its records whether an employer had coverage." Id. at 308. See G. L. c. 152, s. 63.

There are similar policy considerations in the case at bar. If Eastern wished to cancel the policy, it had to conform to the requirements of s. 65B, which it failed to do when it did not notify the Rating Bureau in a timely manner. A contrary decision would "be disruptive of the time and energy of the [Rating Bureau] and hence contrary to the principles of sound administrative procedure," Ferreira v. Arrow Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 15 Mass. App. Ct. 633 , 636 (1983), and would defeat the purpose of G. L. c. 152, s.s. 63 and 65B, which allow the department to know with certainty whether an employer is insured. Frost, supra at 308.

Since Eastern could not unilaterally rescind the policy, and since it did not comply with the requirements of G. L. c. 152, s. 65B, it insured Demolition Specialists, effective February 10, 1996, and provided coverage on the date of Cummings's injury on March 26, 1996 [Note 16]. The decision of the reviewing board is affirmed.

So ordered.