Arizona total-loss rules

Titling definition, not an insurance-code settlement threshold. Owner-retained salvage: § 28-2091(C) provides that 'if the owner retains possession of a salvage vehicle or nonrepairable vehicle, the owner shall comply with this section before receiving a total loss settlement from the insurance company or otherwise disposing of the vehicle' — the same payment-after-title sequencing Ohio imposes. A separate 'nonrepairable vehicle' brand (§ 28-2091(T)(2)) applies where the vehicle has no resale value except as parts or scrap.

Structurally the NAIC model that California's 10 CCR § 2695.8 also follows, but Arizona omits the parts that give California's version its teeth — there is no comparable-vehicle radius, no recency window, no minimum count, and no 'whether or not a replacement automobile is purchased' clause.

The absence of a comps standard is the verified finding here, not a gap in verification: the full text of R20-6-801 was retrieved and checked for a definition of 'comparable automobile'. The deduction sentence is the practical lever in Arizona — an unexplained condition deduction is checkable against 'measurable, discernible, itemized' in a way that a low comparable is not.

Read with A.R.S. § 20-461(15), which separately requires a reasonable explanation of the basis for a denial or a compromise offer. Neither provision names the valuation report as a document that must be handed over, so a request for the comparables should be made in writing and dated.

Tax is a component of the cost basis rather than a separate entitlement, which is why it is included up front on the face of the rule. Because Arizona lacks California's express 'whether or not a replacement automobile is purchased' sentence, an insurer arguing for deferral until replacement is not contradicted by explicit text.

The replacement-vehicle method at R20-6-801(H)(1)(a) carries the same requirement, with those fees paid at no cost to the insured beyond the deductible.

The full text of R20-6-801 was retrieved and checked: it contains no mention of appraisal, an appraisal provision or an umpire. A search of Title 20 surfaced no first-party auto physical-damage appraisal statute either. Recorded as 'no state rule' rather than 'unverified' on that basis, but Title 20 was not retrieved section by section. Practical consequence: read your own policy, because the procedure and its cost allocation come from the policy alone.

Both clocks run in WORKING days, not calendar days — count them properly before asserting one has passed. Acknowledgement text: 'within 10 working days, acknowledge the receipt of the notice' (E)(1). The absence of a payment deadline is verified, not unchecked: the rule was read for one. That gap matters, because acceptance without payment is the stage where an Arizona total loss most often stalls, and the state clock offers no answer to it.

Quoted provision is § 20-461(15). The statute opens 'A person shall not commit or perform with such a frequency to indicate as a general business practice any of the following:' — the general-business-practice qualifier is on the statute, so a single mishandled claim is usually argued under the regulation rather than the statute. Also relevant: (2) failing to acknowledge and act reasonably and promptly upon communications, and (6) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements.

Six years for a written contract executed in Arizona. Check the policy for a shorter suit-limitation clause before relying on the statutory period — Arizona is not confirmed here to prohibit them, unlike Michigan.

The Department's older complaint address forwards to its current page. DIFI reviews for an apparent violation of statutes and rules, and says it cannot decide liability or fault. Filing does not extend any policy or statutory time limit, and complaints become public records. The online form allows one chance to attach documents, so have the valuation report and correspondence ready. insurance.consumers@difi.az.gov, (602) 364-3100.

The regulator's name as it appears on its own complaint page.