Skip to content
ClaimMathCheck my offer

Rule changes

What changed, and when

State rules change, and a rule that was right last year can be wrong today. This is the dated record: regulations that have changed or are about to, corrections to anything we published incorrectly, and when each row was last checked. Every entry points at the ledger fields it touches, so the citation you check it against comes from the state page rather than from this one.

Not yet in effect

These are dates worth putting in a diary. The rules below have been adopted but have not started to apply, so the fields on our state pages are verified against the rule as it stands now.

  • Sep 13, 2026Rule changeOklahoma

    Takes effect Nov 1, 2026

    Oklahoma's salvage-title threshold rises from 60 to 70 percent of a vehicle's fair market value on November 1, 2026. A vehicle from the last ten model years whose cost of repair for safe operation exceeds the figure must have its title returned for a salvage title, including when an insurer pays a claim for less than a total loss. Senate Bill 1920 made the change this year. Oklahoma's page shows 60 percent until the new figure takes effect, and the field is re-read then.

    • Oklahoma · When a car counts as a total loss47 O.S. § 1111(A), (C)(1); 36 O.S. § 1250.8(M) · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

Full record

  • Sep 23, 2026VerificationOhio

    Ohio's six-year period for suing your own insurer is unchanged. Senate Bill 219 amended Revised Code 2305.06 effective September 23, 2026, and the amended section, read on its effective date, still says an action on a written contract 'shall be brought within six years after the cause of action accrued'. The amendment adds one exception, for oil and gas lease actions under section 2305.041(B), which does not reach an auto policy. The rest of the Ohio row was read against its sources the same day: Administrative Code 3901-1-54 is still the version effective February 14, 2022, and Revised Code 4505.11 the version effective June 30, 2021, and every quote on the row appears in them unchanged.

    • Ohio · Time limit to sue your own insurerORC 2305.06 · checked Sep 23, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationIndiana

    Indiana added. Every field was read in the General Assembly's own publication of the Indiana Code, the Indiana Register's current administrative code, or the Department of Insurance's complaint page. Indiana has no auto claims regulation at all: 760 IAC 1-64, the rule this research began from, turned out to govern the valuation of life insurance policies, and none of the Department's other rules deals with auto claims. Its salvage-title statute turns an insured total loss on the insurer's own determination that repair is economically impractical, not on the 70 percent test in the same section, which applies only to businesses that insure their own vehicles and to vehicles acquired already damaged. The time limit to sue is recorded as unsettled between six and ten years, because the two statutes that could apply do not say which one covers an insurance policy.

    • Indiana · How the settlement must be valuedIC 27-4-1-4.5; IC 27-4-1.5; 760 IAC 1 (no valuation provision) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Indiana · When a car counts as a total lossIC 9-22-3-3(a)(1), (a)(2); IC 9-22-3-2 · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Indiana · Time limit to sue your own insurerIC 34-11-2-9(b); IC 34-11-2-11(a) · checked Sep 13, 2026
  • Sep 13, 2026CorrectionNew Mexico

    New Mexico's complaint link points at the Office of Superintendent of Insurance's own File a Complaint page again. It had been sent to the national NAIC complaint form instead for one reason: the Superintendent's site served a security certificate that did not match its own address, so a browser put a full-page warning in front of it. The site has since moved to new hosting, its certificates now match, and the page opens with no warning. From that page the Home, Auto & Life Insurance form leads to the same NAIC form, so a claimant ends up where they did before, and the page adds a list of what the Superintendent cannot do, among them determining the value of a claim, which the note now carries. The regulator's name field was still telling readers its source link might warn them; that sentence is removed, and its quote now cites OSI's Consumer Assistance page, where the sentence is part of the page rather than of a navigation menu. The complaint note also sent supporting documents to an OSI email address that no longer appears on OSI's site or on the form, so it is removed.

    • New Mexico · Where to file a complaintNew Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • New Mexico · State regulatorNew Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026CorrectionNew Mexico

    New Mexico's total-loss threshold quoted its salvage-vehicle definition as though “a vehicle” ran straight on into the definition's second limb. It does not: NMSA § 66-1-4.16(C) reads “means a vehicle: (1) other than a nonrepairable vehicle … or (2) that was determined to be uneconomical to repair …”, and the quote had left out the first limb without marking the gap. So it was not word for word, and at seventy-two words it was also far longer than a quote on this site may run. The field now quotes, exactly as the statute reads, the part of the second limb its note relies on: the insurer obtaining the claimant's agreement to the settlement amount and telling them the title must be branded. What the row says about New Mexico's rule is unchanged.

    • New Mexico · When a car counts as a total lossNMSA § 66-1-4.16(C)(1), (C)(2) · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationNevada

    Nevada added, with every field read in the Legislature's own Nevada Revised Statutes and Nevada Administrative Code or on the Division of Insurance's complaint page, and every field settled. Nevada's total-loss rule, NAC 686A.680, requires taxes and transfer fees in the settlement, comparables from the local market area within 90 days, and a written disclosure of the basis for the settlement. The 65 percent total-loss threshold is defined in NRS 487.790, the section before the salvage-title duties in NRS 487.800, and it leaves paint, manufacturer-specification electronics and towing out of the repair cost. Two points go further than the regulation: NRS 690B.012 gives an insurer 30 calendar days from receiving a claim to approve or deny it, tighter than the regulation's 30 working days from proofs of loss, and NRS 686A.310 makes an insurer liable to its own insured for damages caused by an unfair claims practice.

    • Nevada · How the settlement must be valuedNAC 686A.680(1)(a), (1)(b), (2) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Nevada · When a car counts as a total lossNRS 487.790(1)(b), (2); NRS 487.770; NRS 487.800(1) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Nevada · Claim-handling deadlinesNRS 690B.012(1), (2); NAC 686A.665(1); NAC 686A.675(1), (3) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Nevada · Unfair claims practices lawNRS 686A.310(1), (2); NAC 686A.600 to 686A.690 · checked Sep 13, 2026
  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationOklahoma

    Oklahoma added, with every field settled. The Insurance Department's claims-settlement rules, OAC 365:15-3, the subchapter this research began from, were revoked effective September 1, 2023, so every Oklahoma claims standard in the ledger cites the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act in Title 36 instead. Its total-loss section, 36 O.S. § 1250.8, puts taxes and transfer fees in the settlement, prices the vehicle from a comparable available locally within 90 days, a dealer quotation or a published guidebook, and requires the basis to be fully explained. Statutes were read in the Oklahoma State Courts Network's publication and in the Legislature's compiled titles, and the complaint page on the Insurance Department's site. The row also records what an insurer's written offer is worth in court: when a judgment exceeds it, the insured is the prevailing party for costs and attorney fees and the verdict carries 15 percent interest.

    • Oklahoma · How the settlement must be valued36 O.S. § 1250.8(A)(1), (A)(2), (B) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Oklahoma · Claim-handling deadlines36 O.S. § 1250.6(A); § 1250.7(A), (C); § 1250.4(C); § 3629(B) · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Oklahoma · Unfair claims practices law36 O.S. § 1250.3(B); § 1250.5(4); § 1250.14 · checked Sep 13, 2026
  • Sep 13, 2026Rule changeOklahoma

    Takes effect Nov 1, 2026

    Oklahoma's salvage-title threshold rises from 60 to 70 percent of a vehicle's fair market value on November 1, 2026. A vehicle from the last ten model years whose cost of repair for safe operation exceeds the figure must have its title returned for a salvage title, including when an insurer pays a claim for less than a total loss. Senate Bill 1920 made the change this year. Oklahoma's page shows 60 percent until the new figure takes effect, and the field is re-read then.

    • Oklahoma · When a car counts as a total loss47 O.S. § 1111(A), (C)(1); 36 O.S. § 1250.8(M) · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026CorrectionRhode Island

    Rhode Island's total-loss floor was out of date. Since June 26, 2026, the provision that makes it an unfair claims practice to total a repairable car has set its range at 75 to 85 percent of fair market value; it used to read 75 to 80. Senate Bill 3115 and House Bill 7866, two identical acts, made the change and took effect without the Governor's signature as Public Laws 2026, chapters 286 and 287, raising the provision's other 80 percent figures to 85 as well. The row was re-checked on September 6 against the Legislature's online text of the General Laws, which still carries the old wording, so it went on showing 80 percent and describing the change as only proposed. The field now quotes the provision as the public law amended it. No audit check reads this figure, so no finding or dollar range changes.

    • Rhode Island · When a car counts as a total lossR.I. Gen. Laws § 27-9.1-4(29), as amended by P.L. 2026, ch. 286 and ch. 287 · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationSouth Dakota

    South Dakota added, with every field read in the Legislature's own Codified Laws and Administrative Rules or on the Division of Insurance's complaint page, and every field settled. South Dakota has no auto claims regulation and no total-loss percentage: an insurer's own determination makes a vehicle salvage under SDCL 32-3-51.19, and a 2026 bill to set a minimum damage threshold, Senate Bill 227, was tabled in the House. Its claims-processing standards, SDCL 58-12-31 to 58-12-37, require an accurate explanation of the basis for a compromise offer but give no private right to sue, and a separate statute allows attorney fees when an insurer's refusal to pay is vexatious. South Dakota also voids contract clauses that shorten the time to sue, which bears on the suit deadline in an auto policy.

    • South Dakota · When a car counts as a total lossSDCL 32-3-51.19; SDCL 32-3-51.20; SDCL 32-3-51.21 · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • South Dakota · Unfair claims practices lawSDCL 58-12-33; § 58-12-34(4); § 58-12-36; SDCL 58-33-67 to 58-33-69 · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • South Dakota · Time limit to sue your own insurerSDCL 15-2-13(1); SDCL 53-9-6 · checked Sep 13, 2026
  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    The audit can now put a dollar figure on a missing sales-tax line in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota, from rates quoted and dated at the taxing authority or in the statute itself. Where a state taxes a vehicle differently from other goods, its row carries the vehicle's own tax and says so: Georgia's title ad valorem tax, Kentucky's usage tax, Iowa's fee for new registration, Maryland's excise tax, Minnesota's motor vehicle sales tax and Alabama's reduced automotive rate. Each is the state's rate alone. Where counties and cities add their own, the figure is the lowest the tax can be, and a rate from the claimant's own paperwork replaces it. Arkansas and Connecticut are recorded but price nothing, because each taxes a vehicle at different rates depending on its price, and one rate would be wrong for part of the range. Alaska levies no state sales tax, but its boroughs and cities may, so its finding still asks for the local rate instead of falling silent.

    • Alaska · Sales tax3 AAC 26.080(a)(1) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Alabama · Sales taxAla. Admin. Code r. 482-1-125-.08(b) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Arkansas · Sales taxArk. Code § 23-89-211(a)(1), (a)(2), (d); Ark. Ins. Rule 43 § 10 · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Arizona · Sales taxAriz. Admin. Code R20-6-801(H)(1)(b) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • California · Sales tax10 CCR § 2695.8(b)(1), (b)(1)(A) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Colorado · Sales taxC.R.S. § 10-4-639(1) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Connecticut · Sales taxConn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(16) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Florida · Sales taxFla. Stat. § 626.9743(5)(a), (9) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Georgia · Sales taxGa. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 120-2-52-.06(a) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Hawaii · Sales taxHRS §§ 431:10C-309, 310, 311 (silent as to excise tax); HAR ch. 16-23 (silent) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Iowa · Sales taxIowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.43(1)(a)(1) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Idaho · Sales taxIdaho Code § 41-1329 (silent as to tax); IDAPA Title 18 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Illinois · Sales tax50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.80(c)(3)(A)(i) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Kansas · Sales taxK.A.R. 40-1-34 (first-party cash settlement; third-party consideration provision) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Kentucky · Sales tax806 KAR 12:095 § 7(1)(b) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Louisiana · Sales taxLa. R.S. 22:1892 (silent as to tax); La. R.S. Title 22 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Massachusetts · Sales tax211 CMR 133.05 (silent); Ramirez v. Commerce Ins. Co., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 144 (2017) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Maryland · Sales taxCOMAR 31.15.12.04A(2), B(2) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Maine · Sales tax24-A M.R.S. § 2907 · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Michigan · Sales taxNone found (no statute, admin rule, or DIFS bulletin located) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Minnesota · Sales taxMinn. Stat. § 72A.201 subd. 6(1)(a) · checked Sep 5, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 13, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    The audit can now put a dollar figure on a missing sales-tax line in Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. With them, every state this site publishes has its vehicle tax recorded, either with a rate or with the reason none is priced. Each rate was read at the taxing authority or in the statute and is quoted and dated. Where a state taxes a vehicle through its own tax, the row carries that tax: North Carolina's highway-use tax, New Mexico's and North Dakota's motor vehicle excise taxes, Texas's motor vehicle sales and use tax, Vermont's purchase and use tax, Virginia's motor vehicle sales and use tax and South Carolina's infrastructure maintenance fee. South Carolina's fee is five percent but never more than five hundred dollars, and the figure now stops at that ceiling; the fee is no longer where it used to be codified, and is quoted from the section that holds it now. Washington and Tennessee each add a second state tax on a vehicle that the figure leaves out: Washington five-tenths of one percent on the sale of a motor vehicle, Tennessee its single-article tax. There, and wherever counties or cities add their own, the figure is the lowest the tax can be, and a rate from the claimant's own paperwork replaces it.

    • Missouri · Sales tax20 CSR 100-1.050 (silent); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.027.1 (sales tax credit on a replacement) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Mississippi · Sales taxMiss. Code § 83-11-551 (silent as to tax); Miss. Code Title 83 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • North Carolina · Sales tax11 NCAC 04 .0418(f) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • North Dakota · Sales taxN.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (silent as to tax); N.D.C.C. § 57-40.3-01(5) (excise tax credit on a replacement) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Nebraska · Sales tax210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 009 (silent); Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 44 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Jersey · Sales taxN.J.A.C. 11:3-10.4(a), (e); 11:3-10.2 (definition of actual cash value) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • New Mexico · Sales taxNMSA § 59A-16-20 (silent as to tax); NMSA ch. 59A and Title 13 NMAC (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New York · Sales tax11 NYCRR § 216.6(b) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Ohio · Sales taxOhio Adm. Code 3901-1-54(H)(7)(f)-(g); (H)(6)(c) · checked Sep 23, 2026
    • Pennsylvania · Sales tax31 Pa. Code § 62.3(e)(4) · checked Sep 4, 2026
    • Rhode Island · Sales tax230-RICR-20-40-2.8(E)(3); (A)(5)(a) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • South Carolina · Sales taxS.C. Code ch. 38-59 (silent); S.C. Code § 56-3-627 (Infrastructure Maintenance Fee, not read) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Tennessee · Sales taxTenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-01-05-.09(1)(a), (1)(b) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Texas · Sales tax28 TAC ch. 5, subch. A (automobile insurance) and ch. 21, subch. C (unfair claims settlement practices); Tex. Ins. Code chs. 542, 1952 — no total-loss tax provision in any of them · checked Sep 8, 2026
    • Utah · Sales taxUtah Admin. Code R590-190-12 (silent); Utah Code Title 31A (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Virginia · Sales tax14 VAC 5-400-80 (silent); Va. Code Title 38.2 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Vermont · Sales taxVt. Reg. I-79-2 § 8(B)(1), (B)(2) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Washington · Sales taxWAC 284-30-391(4)(e) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Wisconsin · Sales taxWis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 (silent); Wis. Stat. ch. 632 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • West Virginia · Sales taxW. Va. Code R. § 114-14-7.4.a.4 · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Wyoming · Sales taxWyo. Stat. § 26-13-124 (silent as to tax); Wyo. Stat. tit. 26 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 8, 2026CorrectionTexas

    Texas's sales-tax and title-fee fields move from unverified to no_rule, and the finding they drive moves into the headline range. The search that settles it: Tex. Ins. Code chapters 542 and 1952, 28 TAC chapter 5 subchapter A — the automobile-insurance subchapter, all 29 sections across its seven divisions — and 28 TAC chapter 21's eleven claim-related subchapters including subchapter C, Unfair Claims Settlement Practices, all 80 sections. About 446,000 characters, read in full, with no provision requiring an insurer to include sales tax or transfer fees in a total-loss settlement. An earlier attempt on September 7 could not open subchapter A because the Secretary of State's rules site was migrating, which is why the field was held open until now. Texas charges sales tax, so the cost is real; what Texas does not do is oblige the insurer to fund it, which puts the state on exactly the footing Michigan has always been on — no prescribed valuation method, settlement at actual cash value under the policy, the same good-faith duty quoted on both rows. Michigan's tax finding has always led the headline range and Texas's was excluded, on the reasoning that we would not lead with a number backed by a rule we could not find. That was a statement about our research rather than about Texas, and with the research finished the two states are treated alike. With this, no field in the ledger is unverified.

    • Texas · Sales tax28 TAC ch. 5, subch. A (automobile insurance) and ch. 21, subch. C (unfair claims settlement practices); Tex. Ins. Code chs. 542, 1952 — no total-loss tax provision in any of them · checked Sep 8, 2026
    • Texas · Title and registration fees28 TAC ch. 5, subch. A and ch. 21, subch. C; Tex. Ins. Code chs. 542, 1952 — no title, registration or transfer fee provision in any of them · checked Sep 8, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 7, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    The ledger gained a fourth field status, no_rule, for a rule the source was read and confirmed not to contain. Seventy-nine fields across forty-one states were carrying that fact under 'partly verified', which is the label for a field half settled — so a page that had answered a question was describing itself as having failed to. Those fields now read 'confirmed: no rule', and eight rows whose every field is either quoted or confirmed absent are now verified rather than partial: Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Nothing about any state's law changed; what changed is that the ledger can now tell the difference between 'this state has no such rule' and 'we could not find one'. Two fields whose value opened like an absence were deliberately left alone — Connecticut's claim clock, which exists but is not auto-specific, and South Carolina's comparable-vehicle rule, whose own open question asks whether the regulation exists at all.

    Source

  • Sep 7, 2026CorrectionWhole ledger

    The audit raised a missing-sales-tax finding in every state, including the four that levy no sales tax. In Oregon that meant telling a claimant their insurer had left tax out of a settlement, on a page whose whole argument is that its numbers hold up — Oregon's regulation does require the insurer to pay 'all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees', but there is no Oregon sales tax for the duty to reach. Rates now live in data/tax/base-rates.json, sourced the way the ledger is, and the check declines to raise a tax shortfall where the rate is zero. The fees half of the same rule still fires, because license and transfer fees are real money on a replacement. Delaware's, Montana's and New Hampshire's sales-tax fields move from unverified to no_rule: the question is answered by what those states tax, not by how much of their insurance code has been read.

    • Delaware · Sales tax18 Del. C. § 2304(16) (silent as to tax); 18 DE Admin. Code § 902 (silent) · checked Sep 7, 2026
    • Montana · Sales taxMCA §§ 33-23-202, 33-18-201 (silent as to tax) · checked Sep 7, 2026
    • New Hampshire · Sales taxN.H. Admin. Code § Ins 1002.15 (silent as to tax) · checked Sep 7, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionArizona

    Arizona's claim-handling deadlines cited a commercial republisher over an unencrypted link — the only one left on the site — and quoted the rule as "Within fifteen working days". Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-801(G)(1)(a) writes "Within 15 working days", and the acknowledgement clause quoted in the note said "such notice" where (E)(1) says "the notice". Both are corrected against the Cornell text this row's other fields already cite. The deadlines themselves — 10 working days to acknowledge, 15 to accept or deny, no payment clock — are unchanged.

    • Arizona · Claim-handling deadlinesAriz. Admin. Code R20-6-801(E)(1), (G)(1)(a) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionColorado

    The first run of the weekly source spot-check found two Colorado quotes that no longer matched their sections. The comparable-vehicle definition was linked to 3 CCR 702-5-2-15-5 while the text quoted is in -15-4, and it compressed "This includes, but is not limited to," into "including" — dropping the words that make the list of vehicle characteristics non-exhaustive, which is the part of the definition worth arguing from. The unfair-claims quote dropped "as defined in section 10-3-1115" from C.R.S. § 10-3-1116(1), the cross-reference that decides who can bring the action. Both are corrected against the sources; neither rule changes.

    • Colorado · How comparables must be chosen3 CCR 702-5-2-15-4 (definitions); 3 CCR 702-5-2-15-5 (no comps standard) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Colorado · Unfair claims practices lawC.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(h); § 10-3-1115; § 10-3-1116(1) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionHawaii

    All nine Hawaii fields cited a commercial republisher of the statutes rather than the Legislature's own text. They now cite capitol.hawaii.gov, read there on this date, and every quoted field matches the official wording. Re-reading turned up one error: the comparable-vehicle quote began "Dealer quotations (when…" where HRS § 431:10C-311(a)(2) reads "The use of dealer quotations (when…" — three words had been trimmed from the front. The rule itself was stated correctly and is unchanged.

    • Hawaii · When a car counts as a total lossHRS § 431:10C-309 · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · How the settlement must be valuedHRS § 431:10C-309; § 431:10C-311(a)(1) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · How comparables must be chosenHRS § 431:10C-311(a)(2) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · What the insurer must show youHRS § 431:10C-310(1); § 431:10C-311(a)(2) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Sales taxHRS §§ 431:10C-309, 310, 311 (silent as to excise tax); HAR ch. 16-23 (silent) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Title and registration feesHRS §§ 431:10C-309, 310, 311 (silent as to fees); HAR ch. 16-23 (silent) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Appraisal clauseHRS § 431:10C-311(b)(3) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Unfair claims practices lawHRS § 431:13-103(a)(11); §§ 431:10C-309 to 311 · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Time limit to sue your own insurerHRS § 657-1(1) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionWhole ledger

    Five of the twenty-five quotes on the insurer pages were no longer on the pages they cited, and two rendered twice. GEICO's shortened salvage heading was a duplicate of the full one with two words dropped; Progressive's salvage sentence appeared twice; Progressive's valuation sentence read "Progressive reviews" where the page says "we review"; Allstate's and USAA's valuation sentences had been rewritten by the carriers. USAA was said to name CCC One as its valuation vendor — its page does not, and that was the site's only naming of a vendor, so the claim is withdrawn. Liberty Mutual has stopped publishing how it values a vehicle at all, which its page now records as a silence rather than a quote. Every remaining quote is checked against a stored copy of its source on each commit.

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionKansas

    Kansas's comparable-vehicle row said the regulation 'sets no distance in miles' and 'does not define local market area', and carried status verified while saying so. The regulation does define it: subsection (q) adds section 9(j) to the adopted model, and (j)(2) reads 'local market area means the fifty (50) mile area surrounding the place where the claimant vehicle was principally garaged'. The row now leads with that definition and the audit screens Kansas comparables at 50 miles as a state rule rather than at our own 150-mile house threshold. The same row also asserted a 'two or more written quotations from licensed dealers' requirement; the words quotation, dealer and licensed appear nowhere in the regulation, so that sentence and the dealer-quote fallback are removed.

    • Kansas · How comparables must be chosenK.A.R. 40-1-34(q), adding § 9(j)(2); database criteria at (m)(B) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionLouisiana

    Louisiana's sales-tax note said R.S. 22:1892 contains no tax provision. It does: (F)(2) bars the deduction of contractor overhead, contractor profit and sales tax when determining actual cash value. The note was wrong and is corrected. The field's status is not: subsection F is scoped to first-party losses under fire and extended coverage policies, and it prohibits deducting tax rather than requiring it to be paid, so it is not an auto total-loss rule. Louisiana still has no located auto sales-tax requirement, and the finding stays out of the headline range unless a reader opts in.

    • Louisiana · Sales taxLa. R.S. 22:1892 (silent as to tax); La. R.S. Title 22 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionMichigan

    Michigan's regulator name was quoted as "Department of Insurance and Financial Services" from the department's online complaint form, which uses only the initials DIFS and does not carry the full name anywhere. The name was right; the page cited for it was not. It now cites the department's own home page, read on this date. Found by the weekly source spot-check on its first full pass.

    • Michigan · State regulatorDIFS website · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionNebraska

    Nebraska's regulator was listed as the Department of Insurance's Consumer Affairs Division. The Department's own complaint page names the unit that examines consumer complaints the Insurance Complaint Division, and that is the name the row now carries.

    • Nebraska · State regulatorNebraska Department of Insurance (NDOI) · checked Sep 6, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026Rule changeOhio

    In effect since Sep 23, 2026

    Ohio Revised Code 2305.06 carries an amendment effective 23 September 2026 (SB 219, 136th General Assembly). The section sets the period for suing on a written contract, which is the clock on a first-party claim against your own insurer — it was cut from eight years to six in 2021, and the current text must be re-read after the effective date rather than assumed to still say six. Until then the row states the period as it stands today.

    • Ohio · Time limit to sue your own insurerORC 2305.06 · checked Sep 23, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    Every regulator field that was still marked partial — the complaint address and the department's name in 26 states — was read on the regulator's own site and now carries a quote copied from that page: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin. Four addresses moved: Alabama's and Arizona's older pages forward to new ones, which are now cited; Minnesota's page lives at /consumer/ rather than /consumers/; and Vermont's complaint options sit one page below the hub the row pointed at. New Mexico's complaint address is verified again, quoting the national form it points at rather than the Superintendent's own site, which still fails to load. Five regulators — Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Wisconsin — now ask that complaints be written in the consumer's own words and warn that AI-drafted complaints often misstate the law; their rows say so, and North Dakota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska and Alabama each state they cannot set a claim's value, which is why a complaint in those states should name the rule the insurer skipped rather than argue the number.

    • Alaska · Where to file a complaintAlaska Division of Insurance — File a Consumer Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Alaska · State regulatorAlaska Division of Insurance · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Alabama · Where to file a complaintAlabama Department of Insurance — File A Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Alabama · State regulatorAlabama Department of Insurance (ALDOI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Arkansas · Where to file a complaintArkansas Insurance Department — File A Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Arkansas · State regulatorArkansas Insurance Department (AID) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Arizona · Where to file a complaintDIFI — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Arizona · State regulatorDIFI (Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Colorado · Where to file a complaintColorado Division of Insurance (DORA) — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Colorado · State regulatorColorado Division of Insurance, DORA · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Connecticut · Where to file a complaintConnecticut Insurance Department — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Connecticut · State regulatorConnecticut Insurance Department (CID) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Delaware · Where to file a complaintDelaware Department of Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Delaware · State regulatorDelaware Department of Insurance · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Where to file a complaintHawaii Insurance Division (DCCA) — Filing a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · State regulatorHawaii Insurance Division, DCCA · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Iowa · Where to file a complaintIowa Insurance Division — Filing Complaints · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Iowa · State regulatorIowa Insurance Division (IID) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Idaho · Where to file a complaintIdaho Department of Insurance — File a Consumer Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Idaho · State regulatorIdaho Department of Insurance · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Kansas · Where to file a complaintKansas Department of Insurance — File an Insurance Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Kansas · State regulatorKansas Department of Insurance (KDOI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Louisiana · Where to file a complaintLouisiana Department of Insurance — Consumer Complaint Form · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Louisiana · State regulatorLouisiana Department of Insurance (LDI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Massachusetts · Where to file a complaintMassachusetts Division of Insurance — online insurance complaint form · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Massachusetts · State regulatorMassachusetts Division of Insurance (Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Maine · Where to file a complaintMaine Bureau of Insurance — Property/Casualty Complaint Form · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Maine · State regulatorMaine Bureau of Insurance · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Minnesota · Where to file a complaintMinnesota Department of Commerce — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Minnesota · State regulatorMinnesota Department of Commerce · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Missouri · Where to file a complaintMissouri DCI Division of Consumer Affairs — insurance complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Missouri · State regulatorMissouri Department of Commerce and Insurance (DCI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Mississippi · Where to file a complaintMississippi Insurance Department — File Company Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Mississippi · State regulatorMississippi Insurance Department (MID) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Montana · Where to file a complaintMontana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Montana · State regulatorMontana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (CSI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • North Dakota · Where to file a complaintNorth Dakota Insurance Department — Complaints · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • North Dakota · State regulatorNorth Dakota Insurance Department · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Nebraska · Where to file a complaintNebraska Department of Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Nebraska · State regulatorNebraska Department of Insurance (NDOI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Hampshire · Where to file a complaintNew Hampshire Insurance Department — Filing a Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Hampshire · State regulatorNew Hampshire Insurance Department · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Mexico · Where to file a complaintNew Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 13, 2026
    • Rhode Island · Where to file a complaintRhode Island Insurance Division — Consumers · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Rhode Island · State regulatorRhode Island Department of Business Regulation, Insurance Division · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Utah · Where to file a complaintUtah Insurance Department — complaints · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Utah · State regulatorUtah Insurance Department (UID) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Vermont · Where to file a complaintVermont Department of Financial Regulation — Insurance Complaints · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Vermont · State regulatorVermont Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wisconsin · Where to file a complaintWisconsin OCI — Filing an Insurance Complaint · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wisconsin · State regulatorWisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) · checked Sep 6, 2026
  • Sep 6, 2026CorrectionWhole ledger

    The first full pass of the source spot-check read all 351 verified quotes and found four regulator fields resting on pages that no longer carry them. Texas's complaint address redirects to a new page, and the sentence quoted for both the address and the department's name is not on it — both now quote the current page. Michigan's regulator name was quoted from a form that uses only the initials. New Mexico's complaint field is demoted from verified to partial: the address is right, but the sentence attributed to it is not on the shared national portal it points at, and the Superintendent's own site cannot be reached because its security certificate does not match its name.

    • Texas · Where to file a complaintTDI — Insurance Complaint Process · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Texas · State regulatorTDI — Insurance Complaint Process · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Mexico · Where to file a complaintNew Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance — File a Complaint · checked Sep 13, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 6, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    Nine fields that had been recorded without a quote because their source could not be opened were read from the source itself. Iowa's 70 percent salvage definition (Iowa Code § 321.52(4)(e), raised from 50 percent by Senate File 230) and its ten-year written-contract limitation period (§ 614.1(5)) now quote the 2026 Code. Tennessee's 75 percent salvage definition has moved to § 55-3-201(11)(A) in the 2025 code; the row cites the new number and records that an owner's voluntary salvage designation imposes nothing on the insurer. Hawaii's 30-day recourse right, which lets the insurer conclude the settlement under the policy's appraisal provision, is quoted from HRS § 431:10C-311(b)(3), and its claim-handling clocks from § 431:13-103: a substantive response within 15 working days, payment within 30 calendar days of affirming liability where the amount is not in dispute. Four states that had no encoded deadlines now do, each read from the regulation in full: Alaska (10 working days to acknowledge, 15 to decide, 30 to pay the undisputed part, 3 AAC 26.040 and 26.070), Delaware (15 working days to respond, 10 to begin investigating, 30 days to decide, Regulation 902), Rhode Island (15 days to acknowledge, 21 to decide, 30 to pay, 230-RICR-20-40-2.6 and 2.7) and Utah (15 days to acknowledge, 30 to decide, 30 to pay, R590-190-6, -9 and -10). The audit's deadline check now fires for those four states and for Hawaii's payment clock.

    • Iowa · When a car counts as a total lossIowa Code § 321.52(4)(e) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Iowa · Time limit to sue your own insurerIowa Code § 614.1(5) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Tennessee · When a car counts as a total lossT.C.A. § 55-3-201(11)(A) (2025 code; formerly § 55-3-211) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Appraisal clauseHRS § 431:10C-311(b)(3) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Claim-handling deadlinesHRS § 431:13-103(a)(11)(B), (E), (F), (G) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Alaska · Claim-handling deadlines3 AAC 26.040(a)(1)-(2); 3 AAC 26.070(a)(1)-(2) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Delaware · Claim-handling deadlines18 DE Admin. Code § 902-3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5; 18 Del. C. § 2304(16) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Rhode Island · Claim-handling deadlines230-RICR-20-40-2.6(A), 2.7(A)-(B), 2.7(F) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Utah · Claim-handling deadlinesUtah Admin. Code R590-190-6(1), R590-190-10(2)(a)-(c), R590-190-9(21) · checked Sep 6, 2026
  • Sep 6, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    Fifteen states had sales tax and title-and-registration fees recorded as unverified because the settlement regulation was silent and the wider code had not been searched. Each state's statute and rule library was searched for a total-loss tax or fee provision: Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Wyoming, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, and Hawaii's motor vehicle insurance rules (HAR chapter 16-23) were read in full for the excise-tax and fee question, which they do not address. None requires an insurer to include sales tax or fees, so those fields are now recorded as confirmed absences, and the audit argues the tax on the policy's own value standard in those states, as it already did for Michigan. Delaware, Montana and New Hampshire levy no general sales tax, so their tax fields stay unverified until the audit learns to skip no-tax states; their fee fields are closed. Three states turned out to hand the money back a different way, which the rows now say: Missouri credits the insurance proceeds plus deductible against sales tax on a replacement bought within 180 days (§ 144.027), North Dakota credits the excise tax on a replacement up to the compensation plus deductible (§ 57-40.3-01(5)), and Nebraska refunds the unused months of registration fees and motor vehicle taxes once the insurer takes the salvage title (§ 60-397).

    • Delaware · Sales tax18 Del. C. § 2304(16) (silent as to tax); 18 DE Admin. Code § 902 (silent) · checked Sep 7, 2026
    • Delaware · Title and registration fees18 Del. C. § 2304(16) (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Idaho · Sales taxIdaho Code § 41-1329 (silent as to tax); IDAPA Title 18 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Idaho · Title and registration feesIdaho Code § 41-1329 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Louisiana · Sales taxLa. R.S. 22:1892 (silent as to tax); La. R.S. Title 22 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Louisiana · Title and registration feesLa. R.S. 22:1892 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Mississippi · Sales taxMiss. Code § 83-11-551 (silent as to tax); Miss. Code Title 83 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Mississippi · Title and registration feesMiss. Code § 83-11-551 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Missouri · Sales tax20 CSR 100-1.050 (silent); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.027.1 (sales tax credit on a replacement) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Missouri · Title and registration fees20 CSR 100-1.050 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Nebraska · Sales tax210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 009 (silent); Neb. Rev. Stat. ch. 44 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Nebraska · Title and registration fees210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 009 (silent as to fees); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-397 (refund of unused fees and taxes) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Hampshire · Sales taxN.H. Admin. Code § Ins 1002.15 (silent as to tax) · checked Sep 7, 2026
    • New Hampshire · Title and registration feesN.H. Admin. Code § Ins 1002.15 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • North Dakota · Sales taxN.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (silent as to tax); N.D.C.C. § 57-40.3-01(5) (excise tax credit on a replacement) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • North Dakota · Title and registration feesN.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Utah · Sales taxUtah Admin. Code R590-190-12 (silent); Utah Code Title 31A (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Utah · Title and registration feesUtah Admin. Code R590-190-12 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Virginia · Sales tax14 VAC 5-400-80 (silent); Va. Code Title 38.2 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Virginia · Title and registration fees14 VAC 5-400-80 (silent); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wisconsin · Sales taxWis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 (silent); Wis. Stat. ch. 632 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wisconsin · Title and registration feesWis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Sales taxHRS §§ 431:10C-309, 310, 311 (silent as to excise tax); HAR ch. 16-23 (silent) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Hawaii · Title and registration feesHRS §§ 431:10C-309, 310, 311 (silent as to fees); HAR ch. 16-23 (silent) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Montana · Sales taxMCA §§ 33-23-202, 33-18-201 (silent as to tax) · checked Sep 7, 2026
    • Montana · Title and registration feesMCA §§ 33-23-202, 33-18-201 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Mexico · Sales taxNMSA § 59A-16-20 (silent as to tax); NMSA ch. 59A and Title 13 NMAC (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • New Mexico · Title and registration feesNMSA § 59A-16-20 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • South Carolina · Sales taxS.C. Code ch. 38-59 (silent); S.C. Code § 56-3-627 (Infrastructure Maintenance Fee, not read) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • South Carolina · Title and registration feesS.C. Code ch. 38-59 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wyoming · Sales taxWyo. Stat. § 26-13-124 (silent as to tax); Wyo. Stat. tit. 26 (no provision located) · checked Sep 6, 2026
    • Wyoming · Title and registration feesWyo. Stat. § 26-13-124 (silent as to fees); wider code searched, no fee provision located · checked Sep 6, 2026
  • Sep 5, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    Arizona, Washington, Colorado, Tennessee and Virginia added, taking the ledger from ten states to fifteen. Every field was fetched from a primary source. Three were deliberately recorded as less than fully verified rather than filled in: Tennessee's salvage threshold, where the statute text could not be retrieved; Virginia's sales tax and fees, where the governing regulation is silent; and Colorado's claim deadlines, where the statute sets a reasonableness standard and no day counts exist to record.

  • Sep 5, 2026Rule changeWashington

    In effect since Oct 18, 2026

    Washington's Office of the Insurance Commissioner has adopted a revised claims-handling rule, signed 18 August 2026 and taking effect 18 October 2026. It changes how insurers inspect vehicle damage, how they communicate with a repair facility the claimant has chosen, and how total-loss claims are settled — including a restriction on what an insurer may require while a claim is going through the policy's appraisal provision. Every Washington field below is verified against the rule as it stands today, and will be re-checked on or before the effective date.

    • Washington · How the settlement must be valuedWAC 284-30-391(2)(b)(i)-(ii) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Washington · How comparables must be chosenWAC 284-30-391(2)(b)(ii); (2)(b)(iv) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Washington · Appraisal clauseWAC 284-30-391(3) · checked Sep 5, 2026
    • Washington · Sales taxWAC 284-30-391(4)(e) · checked Sep 5, 2026

    Source

  • Sep 4, 2026VerificationWhole ledger

    Initial ledger published: California, New York, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, each field cited to a primary source and dated.

How the ledger is built and what each status means is set out in how we verify.