Michigan total-loss rules

Same 75%/91% language recurs in subsections (5), (8), (10). This is a titling requirement on the insurer or owner, not a settlement-practice rule.

Absence confirmed by reviewing the full Michigan Admin Code DIFS 'Insurance' rule index on Cornell LII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/michigan/department-insurance-and-financial-services/insurance) — no total-loss, ACV, or claims-settlement rule exists (R 500.2101–.2142 are hearing procedures, not claims rules). DIFS 'Comprehensive Guide to Auto Insurance' PDF and DIFS P&C FAQ (retrieved) contain no total-loss valuation guidance. Marked partial because it documents a negative.

The rule set the brief guessed at (R 500.2101–500.2151) is DIFS hearing procedure, not claims handling. Quote is the index entry establishing that. No 'Unfair Claims Settlement Practices' model regulation has been adopted in Michigan's administrative code; the only claims standards are statutory (MCL 500.2006, 500.2026).

Verified quote, but the statute does not expressly require handing over the total-loss valuation report; 'partial' reflects the inferential fit.

DIFS's auto-insurance consumer page and its linked publications (consumer guide, FIS-PUB_0200 'Three Types of Collision Coverage') were read and searched for 'sales tax', 'total loss' and 'actual cash value' — none address sales tax on a total loss. The DIFS insurance rule index carries no such rule either. Whether tax is owed therefore turns on the policy's own ACV language (many ISO-based forms include applicable taxes in ACV): policy-based, not statutory. No DIFS bulletin on the point was located.

Same negative finding as sales tax; depends on policy language.

Michigan's statutory appraisal requirement (MCL 500.2833(1)(m)) is in the standard FIRE policy, not auto. Policy forms must be filed/approved under MCL 500.2236. Quote is the LII index entry demonstrating no auto-appraisal rule exists among DIFS policy-form rules.

Also verbatim (3): 'An insurer shall specify in writing the materials that constitute a satisfactory proof of loss not later than 30 days after receipt of a claim unless the claim is settled within the 30 days.' and (1): 'Failure to pay claims on a timely basis or to pay interest on claims as provided in subsection (4) is an unfair trade practice unless the claim is reasonably in dispute.' The 12% interest applies to the insured or a person directly entitled to benefits under the insured's contract; a THIRD-PARTY tort claimant gets it only if liability is not reasonably in dispute, payment was refused in bad faith, and a court so finds.

(1)(b): 'Failing to acknowledge promptly or to act reasonably and promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies.' (1)(e): 'Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed.' The 'no first-party bad-faith tort' point (Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual) is background case law not retrieved.

R 500.2212(3) (retrieved https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/michigan/Mich-Admin-Code-R-500-2212): 'a shortened limitation of action clause issued or delivered to any person in this state in a policy ... is void and of no effect.' This is a notable pro-consumer differentiator: Michigan auto policies cannot impose a 1- or 2-year suit-limitation clause on first-party PD claims. MCL 500.3145 (1-year no-fault PIP limit) does NOT govern collision/comprehensive property claims, which are contract claims.

Screening questions route the consumer to the appropriate complaint form. Toll-free 877-999-6442.