Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionMassachusetts High Court Finds Workers’ Comp Rate Cut Lacked Explanation
Massachusetts’s highest court has handed down a significant ruling in a workers’ compensation insurance rate dispute, finding that while the state’s Insurance Commissioner had the authority to reject a proposed rate decrease, he failed to adequately explain how he arrived at a specific replacement rate.
The decision, The Workers’ Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts vs. Commissioner of Insurance, by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, has important implications for the rate-setting process in the workers’ compensation insurance market and underscores the obligation of regulators to provide transparent, reasoned explanations for their decisions.
The case arose from two consecutive rate filings submitted by the Workers’ Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (WCRIB), the sole licensed rating organization for workers’ compensation insurance in the state. In December 2023, WCRIB proposed a statewide average rate decrease of -7.6%, to take effect July 1, 2024. The Commissioner of Insurance rejected that proposal and instead ordered a steeper -14.6% decrease, without explaining how he calculated that figure.
In a subsequent filing made in November 2024, WCRIB proposed a 7.1% rate increase. The commissioner again rejected the proposal, this time leaving the existing rates — already reflecting the -14.6% reduction — unchanged. WCRIB petitioned the court for review of both decisions.
At the heart of the dispute was a methodological disagreement over how many years of historical loss data should be used to estimate future workers’ compensation claims. WCRIB had relied on two years of data, a practice it had followed for more than two decades. The commissioner, however, determined that five years of data were necessary to account for the distorting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which produced unusually low losses in 2020 and unusually high losses in 2021 and 2022.
WCRIB argued that this departure from established methodology was inconsistent with prior regulatory practice. The commissioner also rejected WCRIB’s methodology for calculating the underwriting profit provision, a component of rate-setting that accounts for the insurer’s expected return.
The court upheld the commissioner’s authority to disapprove WCRIB’s proposed rates on both methodological grounds. It found that the shift to a five-year data window was a reasonable response to the pandemic’s anomalous impact on loss data and that the commissioner had provided a sufficient explanation for departing from the two-year approach.
However, the court drew a sharp distinction between the commissioner’s authority to reject a proposed rate and his obligation to justify any specific replacement rate he orders. Noting that the 14.6% figure appeared without any supporting analysis, the court stated plainly: “As our high school mathematics teachers reminded us: you need to show your work.”
The court also found that the commissioner failed to adequately explain his directive requiring WCRIB to use data from a single self-insurance group, rather than nationwide industry data, when setting rates for a specific business classification covering primarily public housing authority employees. The court found this change raised legitimate questions about fairness and consistency that the commissioner had not addressed.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the commissioner’s finding that existing rates were excessive but remanded the matter for further proceedings. The commissioner must now provide a clear, reasoned explanation for the 14.6% rate decrease and address the outstanding questions surrounding the specialized classification methodology.
View the court decision here. &
