WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1655

Requires all motor vehicle insurers to file annual detailed financial and claim data statements with the superintendent of financial services

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jamaal Bailey

Requires automatic sprinkler systems in new or majorly altered residential buildings with four or more units, with limited waivers/alternatives and an appeals process.

REFERRED TO INSURANCE
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1655

NOTE (metadata inconsistency)
The bill text provided (Massachusetts Senate No. 1655, “An Act relative to fire protection,” presented by Senator John J. Cronin) concerns automatic sprinkler requirements for certain residential buildings. The initial header in your prompt mentioning motor-vehicle insurer reporting and sponsors Tammy Duckworth/Jamaal Bailey appears to conflict with the embedded bill text and sponsors. The summary below is based on the actual bill text (Senate No. 1655) as provided.

Summary — S.1655 (Senate Docket No. 675) — "An Act relative to fire protection"

Purpose and intent

To clarify and codify standards for requiring automatic sprinkler systems in residential buildings that are newly constructed or undergo major alteration, while providing limited exemptions, alternatives, and an appeal process. The goal is to enhance fire protection in multifamily and other residential-occupancy buildings while allowing flexibility where water supply or historic/architectural considerations make full sprinkler systems impractical.

Key provisions

  • Amends Chapter 148, §26I of the Massachusetts General Laws by replacing the section in full.
  • Applicability (opt-in): Applies in any city, town or district that accepts the provisions of the section.
  • Scope: Requires that any building hereafter constructed, or undergoing a major alteration/modification, that is occupied in whole or part for residential purposes and contains at least four dwelling units be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with the State Building Code.
    • Examples listed include lodging/boarding houses, fraternity houses, dormitories, apartments, townhouses, condominiums, hotels, motels and group residences.
  • Alternate systems: If adequate water supply is not available, the head of the local fire department may permit an alternative or modified fire suppression system as prescribed by the State Building Code in lieu of automatic sprinklers.
  • Insurance incentive: Owners of buildings with approved and properly maintained installations may be eligible for reductions on fire insurance.
  • Enforcement: The head of the fire department enforces the section.
  • Appeals and waivers: Aggrieved parties may appeal interpretations, orders, requirements, directions, or failures to act within 45 days to the automatic sprinkler appeals board (per G.L. c.6 §201). That board may grant reasonable waivers or allow reasonable alternative, modified or partial systems, including on grounds of building characteristics or architectural/historical significance.
  • Preservation of state standards: The act does not limit the State Building Code from imposing more stringent sprinkler requirements.
  • Grandfathering: The sprinkler requirement does not apply to construction projects that were approved by permit within one year prior to the act’s effective date.

Who is affected

  • Municipalities that choose to accept the section (cities, towns, districts)
  • Building owners and developers of residential buildings with four or more dwelling units
  • Local fire departments (enforcement and discretion regarding alternatives)
  • Property insurers (potential premium impacts due to sprinkler installations)
  • Owners of historically or architecturally significant buildings who may seek waivers or alternatives

Procedural/timeline aspects

  • Appeals to the automatic sprinkler appeals board must be filed within 45 days of notice.
  • Projects permitted within one year before the act’s effective date are exempt from the new requirement.
  • The State Building Code may continue to set stricter standards; local adoption required for applicability.

Potential impacts (practical considerations)

  • Safety: Likely improvement in fire protection and reduced life/property loss risk in covered buildings.
  • Costs: Additional construction/retrofit costs for sprinkler systems or approved alternatives; potential insurance premium reductions could offset some costs.
  • Local discretion: Municipal acceptance and fire department determinations (e.g., alternate systems where water is inadequate) will influence uniformity of application.
  • Historic/architectural preservation: The appeals process provides a pathway for exemptions or alternative measures to protect historic structures.

If you want, I can prepare a short comparison showing how this version differs from the prior §26I or a one-page checklist for building owners and municipal officials about compliance steps.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.