Montana total-loss rules

No percentage and no vehicle-age limit — the trigger is the insurer's own judgment, verified by reading the definitions section specifically for a threshold. § 61-3-211, which governs the salvage-branding procedure, uses the term without defining it. Titling rule; Montana's insurance code constrains the VALUE that must be paid rather than the decision to total — see “how the settlement must be valued”, which is the strongest provision in this row.

One of the most consequential single sentences in the ledger, and unique to Montana. It does not merely require a fair figure — it strikes down the policy language an insurer would otherwise rely on, and substitutes ACTUAL REPLACEMENT VALUE: what it would cost to actually replace the vehicle, not a guide figure. Book value may inform that assessment but cannot stand in for it. A Montana valuation resting on a database figure without evidence of local replacement cost is engaging with the wrong measure. The cross-reference to MCA § 27-1-306 was not retrieved.

The absence of a comps standard matters less here than in most states, because Montana attacks the problem from the other end: instead of policing which comparables may be used, it fixes what the answer must represent. The argument is therefore that a figure is not actual replacement value, rather than that a particular comparable fails a test.

Recorded as partial because the duty is to explain the basis in the POLICY, not to hand over the valuation workings. Note also that (14) is NOT among the subsections carrying the private right of action under § 33-18-242 — that list is (1), (4), (5), (6), (9) and (13) — so an explanation failure is a regulator matter, while a bad-faith settlement failure under (6) is actionable by the claimant. That distinction is worth getting right before drafting.

Montana is one of four states with no general sales tax, so a rule requiring an insurer to include it would have nothing to operate on, and the audit does not raise a tax shortfall here. Recorded as a confirmed absence rather than as an unsearched gap: the question is answered by what Montana taxes, not by how much of Title 33 has been read.

The settlement provisions are silent on fees, and the Montana Code Annotated and Administrative Rules were searched for a total-loss fee requirement; the only matches were the vehicle theft protection warranty statute, which mentions a total loss in passing, and an unrelated securities rule; nothing in Title 33 requires fees in a total-loss settlement. Some policy forms include these fees as a matter of contract, which is a policy question rather than a state requirement.

Both sections were retrieved and neither contains appraisal or umpire machinery. Title 33 was not retrieved section by section. The interaction flagged above is worth keeping in mind: an appraisal conducted against book value would be measuring by a standard the statute has already voided.

The absence of day counts is verified — § 33-18-201 was read specifically for numbers and contains none. What Montana substitutes for a clock is the § 33-18-242 cause of action, and subsection (6) — the good-faith prompt settlement duty — is expressly within its scope, so unreasonable delay in a Montana total loss is actionable by the claimant rather than only reportable to the regulator.

Montana joins Colorado, Massachusetts and Maine among the strongest first-party positions in the ledger, and the detail that matters is WHICH subsections are actionable. (6) — neglecting to attempt in good faith a prompt, fair and equitable settlement — is on the list, and that is the natural home of a lowballed total loss. (14), the explanation duty, is NOT. 'The court or jury may award such damages as were proximately caused by the violation' and 'Exemplary damages may also be assessed in accordance with 27-1-221.' CRITICAL LIMITATION: the § 33-18-242 action must be brought within TWO YEARS of the violation for an insured — far shorter than the six-year contract period, and the two should not be confused.

Six years on the CONTRACT claim. But the statutory bad-faith action under § 33-18-242 runs on its own, much shorter clock — two years from the date of the violation for an insured, one year from settlement or judgment for a third-party claimant. A Montana claimant relying on the six years may lose the more valuable remedy first. Check the policy for a shorter suit-limitation clause as well.

Use the "File an insurance complaint" button on this page; the same page also handles fraud reports and securities complaints, so pick the insurance option. CSI also investigates complaints against adjusters.

The Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (CSI) is the elected State Auditor's office; the page's title carries the name in full.