Filing a complaint with your state insurance department
What a state insurance department complaint does, what to attach, and the real filing page for each state ClaimMath covers.
Published Sep 4, 2026 · rules last checked Sep 23, 2026
A complaint to your state insurance department is the most underused step in a total-loss dispute. It costs nothing, it takes about twenty minutes, and it moves your file from the adjuster handling it to someone at the insurer whose job is answering regulators.
It is not a lawsuit and it will not force anyone to pay you. What it does is create a written record that a state agency has asked the insurer to explain itself.
Where to file
When to file
Not first. A complaint filed before you have put anything in writing to the insurer reads as a dispute about service, and the department will usually forward it and ask them to respond.
File after one of these has happened:
- You sent a written counteroffer and got no reply within the period your state allows.
- You got a reply that did not address the points you raised.
- The insurer told you something you can show is inconsistent with the state's own rule.
That last one is the strongest. A complaint that says "the settlement included no sales tax, and this state requires it" is a specific, checkable assertion. One that says "the offer was too low" is not.
Name the rule, not the feeling
A department reviewer is deciding one thing: whether what you describe looks like conduct their state regulates. That is much easier for them to see if you point at the rule.
Every state ClaimMath covers has an unfair claims settlement practices provision — the general standard that governs how an insurer must handle a claim. It is the frame a complaint sits in, and naming it costs you a sentence.
| State | What the rule says | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Admin. Code ch. 482-1-125 (unfair claims settlement practices), promulgated under Ala. Code §§ 27-12-24 and 27-12-21 among others. The detailed automobile total-loss standards sit in the regulation rather than the statute. | Ala. Admin. Code ch. 482-1-125; Ala. Code §§ 27-12-21, 27-12-24 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Alaska | AS § 21.36.125 (unfair claim settlement practices), implemented by 3 AAC 26 (unfair claims settlement acts or practices), with the automobile-specific standards at 3 AAC 26.080. Alaska also recognizes a common-law first-party bad faith tort. | AS § 21.36.125; 3 AAC 26.080 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Arizona | A.R.S. § 20-461 (Unfair claim settlement practices), implemented by Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-801. The statute reaches conduct committed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice; the regulation supplies the detailed total-loss standards. | A.R.S. § 20-461; Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-801 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Arkansas | Ark. Ins. Rule and Regulation 43 (unfair claims settlement practices), made under the Arkansas Insurance Code, with a statutory total-loss provision at Ark. Code § 23-89-211 whose breach is itself declared an unfair claims settlement practice. | Ark. Ins. Rule 43 §§ 9, 10; Ark. Code § 23-89-211(d); § 23-66-206 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h) (Unfair Insurance Practices Act, unfair claims settlement practices) as implemented by the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, 10 CCR §§ 2695.1–2695.17 | Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h)(1)-(16); 10 CCR § 2695.1 et seq. checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Colorado | C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(h) (unfair claim settlement practices), reinforced by § 10-3-1115 (no unreasonable delay or denial of a first-party claim) and § 10-3-1116, which gives a first-party claimant a private right of action for twice the covered benefit plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. | C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(h); § 10-3-1115; § 10-3-1116(1) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816 (CUIPA — unfair practices defined), with the motor-vehicle-specific valuation and disclosure duties at § 38a-353 and the failure to pay the tax uplift made an unfair practice by § 38a-816(16). | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6), (16); § 38a-353 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Delaware | 18 Del. C. § 2304(16) (unfair claim settlement practices), enumerating fourteen practices, implemented by 18 DE Admin. Code § 902. The practices are prohibited only where committed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | 18 Del. C. § 2304(16)(b), (f), (n); 18 DE Admin. Code § 902 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i) (Unfair claim settlement practices); § 626.9743 (Claim settlement practices relating to motor vehicle insurance) | Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)3.a-f; § 626.9743 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Georgia | O.C.G.A. § 33-6-34 (Unfair claims settlement practices); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. ch. 120-2-52 (Fair and Equitable Settlement of First Party Property Damage Claims) | O.C.G.A. § 33-6-34(1)-(4), (6), (7); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 120-2-52-.03, -.06 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Hawaii | HRS § 431:13-103 (unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices defined), with the total-loss settlement methods separately mandated by HRS §§ 431:10C-309 to 311. | HRS § 431:13-103(a)(11); §§ 431:10C-309 to 311 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Idaho | Idaho Code § 41-1329 (unfair claim settlement practices), listing fourteen practices. They constitute unfair practices where committed intentionally, OR with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | Idaho Code § 41-1329(2), (4), (6), (14) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Illinois | 215 ILCS 5/154.6 (Acts constituting improper claims practice), enforced by IDOI under 215 ILCS 5/154.5-154.8 and implemented by 50 Ill. Adm. Code Part 919. Key items: (b) failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness; (c) failing to adopt reasonable standards for prompt investigation/settlement; (d) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlement; (h) refusing to pay without reasonable investigation; (n) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of denial or compromise offer. | 215 ILCS 5/154.6(d) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Indiana | IC 27-4-1-4.5, Indiana's list of unfair claim settlement practices, including failing to attempt in good faith a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of a claim once liability has become reasonably clear. A claimant who believes one was committed may complain to the commissioner under IC 27-4-1-5.6. | IC 27-4-1-4.5; IC 27-4-1-5.6; IC 27-4-1-6 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Iowa | Iowa Admin. Code ch. 191-15 (unfair trade practices and claim settlement standards), made under Iowa Code ch. 507B. The automobile total-loss standards sit at r. 191-15.43 and the general settlement clocks at r. 191-15.41. | Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.41, r. 191-15.43; Iowa Code ch. 507B checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Kansas | K.A.R. 40-1-34 (unfair claims settlement practices), which adopts the NAIC model regulation with Kansas amendments, made under K.S.A. 40-2404(9). | K.A.R. 40-1-34; K.S.A. 40-2404(9) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Kentucky | 806 KAR 12:095 (unfair claims settlement practices), promulgated under the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, KRS 304.12-230. The detailed automobile total-loss standards sit in the regulation. | 806 KAR 12:095; KRS 304.12-230 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. 22:1892 (payment and adjustment of claims; good faith duty; penalties), read with La. R.S. 22:1973 (breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing). The Department enforces Louisiana's insurance laws under La. R.S. 22:1851-1865. | La. R.S. 22:1892(A), (B)(1)(a); La. R.S. 22:1973 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Maine | 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A (unfair claims settlement practices). An insurer acts without just cause if it refuses to settle claims without a reasonable basis to contest liability, the amount of damages or the extent of injuries claimed — and the section creates a PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION with damages, attorney's fees and interest. | 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Insurance § 27-303 (unfair claim settlement practices), with the detailed motor-vehicle valuation standards at COMAR 31.15.12, which sits in Subtitle 15, Unfair Trade Practices. | Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303(6), (9); COMAR 31.15.12 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Massachusetts | M.G.L. c. 176D § 3(9) (unfair claim settlement practices), enforced by the Division of Insurance and, importantly for a consumer, actionable through the Chapter 93A consumer protection statute — which is where multiple damages and attorney's fees come from. | M.G.L. c. 176D § 3(9); M.G.L. c. 93A checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Michigan | Uniform Trade Practices Act, Chapter 20 of the Insurance Code: MCL 500.2006 (timely payment / 12% penalty interest) and MCL 500.2026 (unfair or deceptive claim practices, 'other than isolated incidents' — a course of conduct standard). Enforced by DIFS; Michigan recognizes no common-law first-party bad-faith tort, so 500.2006 interest is the principal statutory remedy. | MCL 500.2026(1)(a)-(n); MCL 500.2006 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 72A.201 (regulation of claims practices), made under the unfair-practices provisions at Minn. Stat. § 72A.20. Minnesota is unusual in putting the detailed standards — including the automobile total-loss method — directly in statute rather than in a department regulation. | Minn. Stat. § 72A.201; § 72A.20 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Mississippi partly verified | Mississippi has no unfair CLAIMS settlement practices act of the NAIC-model kind. The applicable prohibitions are the unfair trade practices provisions in Miss. Code § 83-5-1 et seq., with the enumerated acts at §§ 83-5-35 and 83-5-45. The total-loss duties that do exist sit at § 83-11-551. | Miss. Code §§ 83-5-35, 83-5-45; § 83-11-551 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.1007 (improper claims practices), implemented by 20 CSR 100-1 — the standards for prompt, fair and equitable settlement of claims. The regulation states that it effectuates and aids in the interpretation of § 375.1007(3) and (4). | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.1007(3), (4); 20 CSR 100-1.050 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Montana | MCA § 33-18-201 (unfair claim settlement practices), which bites where conduct occurs with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice — BUT § 33-18-242 gives an insured or third-party claimant an independent cause of action for actual damages caused by a violation of § 33-18-201(1), (4), (5), (6), (9) or (13), with exemplary damages available. | MCA § 33-18-201(2), (6), (14); MCA § 33-18-242 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Nebraska | 210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60 (unfair property and casualty claims settlement practices), made under the Unfair Insurance Claims Settlement Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-1540. The rule bites where a practice is violated with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, OR committed flagrantly and in conscious disregard. | 210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, §§ 002, 008, 009; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-1540 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Nevada | NRS 686A.310, which lists unfair practices in settling claims, including failing to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements once the insurer's liability has become reasonably clear. An insurer is liable to its insured for damages the insured sustains from any of them, in addition to anything the Commissioner can do. | NRS 686A.310(1), (2); NAC 686A.600 to 686A.690 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| New Hampshire | N.H. RSA 417:4, XV (unfair claim settlement practices), within the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices chapter, with the motor vehicle total-loss standards at N.H. Admin. Code Ins 1002.15. | N.H. RSA 417:4, XV(2), XV(4), XV(11); N.H. Admin. Code Ins 1002.15 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New Jersey | N.J.A.C. 11:2-17 (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices), promulgated under the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4(9), with the auto-specific standards at N.J.A.C. 11:3-10. | N.J.A.C. 11:2-17; N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4(9) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New Mexico | NMSA § 59A-16-20 (unfair claims practices defined and prohibited), within the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. The practices are prohibited where knowingly committed, or performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | NMSA § 59A-16-20(B), (D), (E), (N) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New York | N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601 (Unfair claim settlement practices; penalties), implemented by 11 NYCRR Part 216 (Regulation 64, 'Unfair Claims Settlement Practices and Claim Cost Control Measures'); § 216.7 specifically implements Ins. Law § 3411 for motor vehicle physical damage claims | N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601(a)(1)-(6); 11 NYCRR §§ 216.0–216.13 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| North Carolina | N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(11) (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices), enforced via 11 NCAC 04 .0418–.0421 (violations 'prima facie' evidence of 58-63-15(11) when a general business practice). No private cause of action under 58-63-15 itself; private remedy runs through N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 (UDTPA) per NC case law. | N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(11)(a)-(n) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| North Dakota | N.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (unfair claim settlement practices). The practices are prohibited only if done WITHOUT JUST CAUSE and performed with a frequency indicating a general business practice — both conditions, not either. | N.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9)(b), (9)(d), (9)(j) checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Ohio | Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54 (Unfair property/casualty claims settlement practices), promulgated by the Superintendent under ORC 3901.041 and 3901.19-3901.26; ORC 3901.20 prohibits any trade practice defined in or determined under 3901.19-3901.23 to be unfair or deceptive. ORC 3901.21 lists statutory unfair acts (mostly marketing/underwriting; (P) pattern settlements). The rule expressly creates no private cause of action; enforcement is by the Ohio Department of Insurance. | Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54(A)-(B); ORC 3901.20 checked Sep 23, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§ 1250.1 to 1250.16. A listed act, or any other violation of the Act, is an unfair claim settlement practice when committed flagrantly and in conscious disregard of the Act or its rules, or often enough to indicate a general business practice. The listed acts include not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement once liability has become reasonably clear. | 36 O.S. § 1250.3(B); § 1250.5(4); § 1250.14 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Oregon | ORS 746.230 (unfair claim settlement practices), with the detailed motor vehicle physical damage standards at OAR 836-080-0225 to 836-080-0240. | ORS 746.230(1)(b), (1)(f), (1)(m); ORS 746.230(2) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | Unfair Insurance Practices Act, 40 P.S. § 1171.5(a)(10) — unfair claim settlement or compromise practices when committed with such frequency as to indicate a business practice; implemented by 31 Pa. Code Chapter 146 (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices) and enforced by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department. Key items: (i) misrepresenting pertinent facts/policy provisions; (ii) failing to acknowledge and act promptly; (iii) failing to adopt reasonable standards for prompt investigation; (vi) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements; (xiv) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of denial or compromise offer. | 40 P.S. § 1171.5(a)(10)(vi), (xiv) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 27-9.1 (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act), with 'unfair claims practices' defined at § 27-9.1-4 — including, at subsection (29), the motor vehicle total-loss provisions — implemented by 230-RICR-20-40-2 (Unfair Property/Casualty Claims Settlement Practices). | R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-9.1-4(29); 230-RICR-20-40-2.8 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code § 38-59-20 (improper claim practices). The statute reaches conduct committed without just cause and performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | S.C. Code § 38-59-20(2), (4) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| South Dakota | SDCL 58-12-31 to 58-12-37, South Dakota's claims-processing standards, and the unfair practices in dealing with an insured at SDCL 58-33-67. The listed acts include failing to make a good faith attempt at a prompt, fair and equitable settlement once liability, coverage and causation have become reasonably clear. A listed act is an unfair claims practice when committed flagrantly and in conscious disregard of the standards, or often enough to indicate a general business practice. | SDCL 58-12-33; § 58-12-34(4); § 58-12-36; SDCL 58-33-67 to 58-33-69 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Tennessee | T.C.A. § 56-8-105 (unfair claims practice), within the Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Claims Settlement Act of 2009, implemented by Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. chapter 0780-01-05. | T.C.A. § 56-8-105; Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-01-05 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Texas | Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060 (Unfair Settlement Practices); Tex. Ins. Code § 542.003 (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Prohibited); 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.203 | Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a); § 542.003(a)-(b); 28 TAC § 21.203 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Utah | Utah Admin. Code R590-190 (unfair claim settlement practices), with the automobile-specific list at R590-190-12, made under Utah Code § 31A-26-303. | Utah Admin. Code R590-190-12(1), (6); Utah Code § 31A-26-303 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Vermont | 8 V.S.A. § 4724(9) of the Insurance Trade Practices Act, supplemented by Vermont Regulation I-79-2 (Fair Claims Practices), revised effective 1 July 2018. The statute bites where an insurer performs the prescribed acts with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | 8 V.S.A. § 4724(9); Vt. Reg. I-79-2 §§ 1, 3 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Virginia | Va. Code § 38.2-510 (unfair claim settlement practices), implemented by 14 VAC 5-400. The statute reaches conduct performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | Va. Code § 38.2-510(A)(2), (6), (14); 14 VAC 5-400 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Washington | WAC 284-30-330 (specific unfair claims settlement practices defined), promulgated under RCW 48.30.010, together with the total-loss standards at WAC 284-30-391. | WAC 284-30-330; RCW 48.30.010 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code R. § 114-14 (unfair claims settlement practices), made under W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9), with the automobile standards at § 114-14-7. | W. Va. Code R. § 114-14-7; W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 (insurance claim settlement practices), the Commissioner's rule defining unfair claim settlement practices across all lines, including good-faith settlement, denial explanations and the arbitration duties. | Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11(3), (4) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124 (unfair claims settlement practices), within the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The practices are prohibited only where committed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. | Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124(a)(ii), (a)(v), (a)(vi), (a)(xiv) checked Sep 13, 2026 |
You do not need to argue the law. "I believe this falls under the state's unfair claims settlement practices rule" plus the specific thing that happened is enough; the department knows its own provision better than you do. What it cannot supply for you is the specific thing that happened, so spend your words there.
If your state's entry also points at a settlement-practices regulation — the detailed rules about comparables, deductions or tax — that is usually the more precise thing to cite, because it is the one with a checkable requirement in it.
What to attach
- The valuation report the insurer relied on.
- Your letter, and any reply.
- Anything you sent that supports your figure — comparable listings, service records, photographs.
Keep the narrative short and dated. Departments handle a lot of these, and the ones that get traction are the ones where the reviewer can see the problem without reconstructing it.
What to expect
Most departments acknowledge within a couple of weeks and give the insurer a window to respond. You will usually receive a copy of that response. Sometimes the number moves at this point without anyone conceding anything; sometimes the insurer simply restates its position, and you have a written statement of its reasoning that you did not have before.
Either outcome is useful. Neither is certain, and any site that tells you otherwise is guessing.
A complaint does not pause your own deadline
This is the part worth being careful about, and it is the reason to file early rather than late.
Filing a complaint does not stop the clock on your right to bring a claim on the policy yourself. The department's process runs on its own timetable, and that timetable has no relationship to your state's limitation period.
| State | What the rule says | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 6 | Ala. Code § 6-2-34(4) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Alaska | 3 | Alaska Stat. § 09.10.053 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Arizona | 6 | A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Arkansas | 5 | Ark. Code § 16-56-111(a) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| California | 4 years for an action on a written contract (CCP § 337(a)); California enforces reasonable policy suit-limitation clauses, so check the auto policy — many personal auto forms shorten the period, and the statutory 12-month limit in Ins. Code § 2071 applies only to fire policies. Contractual limitation periods are equitably tolled while the claim is pending (Prudential-LMI v. Superior Court, 1990). | Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337(a) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Colorado | 3 | C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(a) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Connecticut | 6 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576(a) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Delaware | 3 | 10 Del. C. § 8106(a) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Florida | 5 | Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b); § 95.11(2)(e) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Georgia | 6 | O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Hawaii | 6 | HRS § 657-1(1) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Idaho | 5 | Idaho Code § 5-216 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Illinois | 10 | 735 ILCS 5/13-206 checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Indiana partly verified | Unresolved between 6 and 10 years. An action on a written contract for the payment of money must be brought within six years, and an action on other written contracts within ten. Neither section says which one covers an insurance policy. | IC 34-11-2-9(b); IC 34-11-2-11(a) checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Iowa | 10 | Iowa Code § 614.1(5) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Kansas | 5 | K.S.A. 60-511(1) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Kentucky | 10 | KRS 413.160 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Louisiana | In practice the policy's own period, floored by statute. La. R.S. 22:868(B) permits a policy to limit the right of action against the insurer, but not to less than 24 months after the inception of the loss for a first-party claim in the specified classifications (one year from accrual for other insurance). Louisiana's general prescriptive period for a personal action is 10 years, but a conforming policy clause displaces it. | La. R.S. 22:868(B) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Maine | 6 | 14 M.R.S. § 752 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Maryland | 3 | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Massachusetts | 6 | M.G.L. c. 260 § 2 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Michigan | 6 years (breach of contract). Policy clauses shortening the statutory period in personal-lines policies are prohibited and void (Mich. Admin. Code R 500.2212, eff. 2007). | MCL 600.5807(9); Mich. Admin. Code R 500.2211–.2212 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Minnesota | 6 | Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Mississippi | 3 | Miss. Code § 15-1-49(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Missouri | 10 | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.110(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Montana | 6 | MCA § 27-2-202(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Nebraska | 5 | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Nevada | 6 | NRS 11.190(1)(b) checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| New Hampshire | 3 | N.H. RSA 508:4, I checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New Jersey | 6 | N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New Mexico | 6 | NMSA § 37-1-3(A) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| New York | 6 years for an action on a contractual obligation (CPLR 213(2)) — BUT New York courts enforce policy suit-limitation clauses, and NY personal auto physical damage policies commonly require suit within 2 years of the loss (some 1 year); treat as policy-based and read the policy. § 216.6(c) requires the insurer, when rejecting a claim, to notify the claimant in writing of any policy provision limiting the right to sue. | N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213(2); 11 NYCRR § 216.6(c) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| North Carolina | 3 years (contract). Property-damage accrual rule: 3 years from when damage becomes apparent (G.S. 1-52(16)). | N.C.G.S. § 1-52(1), (16) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| North Dakota | 6 | N.D.C.C. § 28-01-16(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Ohio | 6 | ORC 2305.06 checked Sep 23, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | 5 | 12 O.S. § 95(A)(1); 36 O.S. § 3617 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Oregon | 6 | ORS 12.080(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | 4 | 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(8) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Rhode Island | 10 | R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| South Carolina | 3 | S.C. Code § 15-3-530(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| South Dakota | 6 | SDCL 15-2-13(1); SDCL 53-9-6 checked Sep 13, 2026 |
| Tennessee | 6 | T.C.A. § 28-3-109(a)(3) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Texas | 4 | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(3); § 16.070(a) checked Sep 4, 2026 |
| Utah | 3 | Utah Code § 31A-21-313(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Vermont | 6 | 12 V.S.A. § 511 checked Sep 6, 2026 |
| Virginia | 5 | Va. Code § 8.01-246(A)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Washington | 6 | RCW 4.16.040(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| West Virginia | 10 | W. Va. Code § 55-2-6 checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Wisconsin partly verified | Unresolved between 3 and 6 years. The general contract period is 6 years (§ 893.43(1)), but § 893.43(2) carves out an action on 'a motor vehicle insurance policy described in s. 632.32 (1)' at 3 years — and § 632.32(1) is scoped to policies insuring against the insured's LIABILITY for loss or damage caused by a motor vehicle. Whether a first-party collision or comprehensive physical-damage claim falls inside that carve-out was not established. | Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1), (2); § 632.32(1) checked Sep 5, 2026 |
| Wyoming | 10 | Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105(a)(i) checked Sep 6, 2026 |
Two warnings sit inside that table. Several states enforce a shorter period written into the policy itself than the statutory one — so the number in the table may not be the number that governs your claim, and the policy is the document to check. Michigan is the notable exception, where such clauses are void in personal-lines policies.
None of this makes a complaint a bad idea. It makes it a poor idea to treat a pending complaint as a reason to wait. If your period is measured in years you have room; if your policy shortens it, find that out now rather than after the department closes your file.
One state-specific note
Georgia's rules also contemplate a Commissioner-run arbitration for some disputes, which is a different route from an ordinary complaint. If you are in Georgia, it is worth asking the department which of the two fits your situation.
What to put in it
Complaint forms are short and the free-text box is the whole thing. Treat it as the summary a busy analyst will read once, and put the checkable facts first.
A version that works:
On 14 August my 2019 Accord was declared a total loss. The valuation report dated 18 August averaged four comparable vehicles, two of which are more than 200 miles from my ZIP code. The settlement summary shows no sales tax line. I wrote to the adjuster on 22 August asking for the comparable listings and the basis for a $850 condition deduction, and have had no written reply in the 15 business days since.
Three dates, two specific defects, one unanswered request. Every sentence is something the department can check against documents the insurer already holds.
What to leave out: how the accident happened, what the car meant to you, what you think of the adjuster personally, and the word "bad faith". None of it is untrue and none of it helps. The department is not deciding whether you were treated unfairly in a general sense; it is asking a company to explain specific conduct against a specific rule.
Attach the valuation report, the settlement summary and your written counteroffer. If your state's form has an attachment limit, the valuation report is the one to send.
What happens next
The department acknowledges the complaint, usually within a couple of weeks, and forwards it to the insurer with a deadline to respond — most states give the insurer somewhere between ten and thirty days, and several of the rules in this ledger require a written answer to a departmental inquiry within a set period regardless of the merits.
The insurer's reply goes to the department and normally to you. Read it carefully even if it changes nothing, because it is often the first time anyone at the insurer has written down their reasoning. A reply that explains the valuation in terms that contradict the report, or that concedes a line you raised, is useful in a way the original silence was not.
Then one of three things happens. The insurer reviews and moves its number, which is the common outcome when the complaint names a specific rule. The insurer explains and the department closes the file, which does not stop you pursuing it further. Or the department finds a pattern worth its own attention, which is rare on a single complaint and is not really the point of filing one.
What it will not do
It will not order the insurer to pay you. Departments regulate conduct rather than adjudicate individual claims, and almost every one of them says so plainly on the page you file from. Somebody who files expecting an award will read the closing letter as a defeat when it is not.
What it does is change who is answering. A file that has a regulator's reference number on it is handled by someone whose job is explaining the company to the state, and the explanation has to be consistent with the report the company already produced. That is a materially different conversation from the one you were having with the adjuster, and it is free.
It also costs you nothing you would otherwise keep. Filing does not waive anything, does not start or stop the period you have to sue, and does not prevent you continuing to negotiate — most people who file keep talking to the adjuster while the complaint is open, and the two are not in tension.
Sources and last checked
Every state fact above is rendered from ClaimMath’s rules ledger and carries its own citation, source link and last-checked date at the point it appears. Nothing here is summarized from memory. How those rows are established is on how we verify.
Check your own valuation report
The free audit reads the report your insurer sent and flags what doesn’t hold up under your state’s rule. No account, and the file isn’t stored.
Start the free audit